Talk:Divine Light Mission/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Criticism

Why has all criticism been deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.150.96.2 (talk) 13:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Psychological changes in converts

Andries, would you care to summarize the first part of that section (Jeanne's Messer's material)?. It is way to long IMO and could be nicely summarized in one long paragraph (I can do it if you want, but I give you first choice as it is your addition). Thanks. --Zappaz 04:16, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bhajans

I was not aware that DLM members sang bhajans too, apart from aarti. Please provide reference, otherwise I will revert. Andries 16:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I already reverted because the edit about bhajans struck me as blatant nonsense about the non-Indian branch of the DLM. It can be re-inserted after providing references. Feel free to create a section on the Indian branch of the DLM. We should by the way also write something about the Prem Nagar ashram. Andries 17:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I think that I was wrong about the bhajans. Andries 14:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

New cite format

I will move all references to the new cite format in the next few days. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

Deletions

Any deletions of material that have been in an article for months, without any explanation in this page about the reasosn, will be reverted. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I think that the digressions about the different versions of arti are largely irrelevant. They are a side issue for this article and should be moved to arti if they should be in Wikipedia at all. Andries 14:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The link to the article past teachings of Prem Rawat should be removed because that article is in a disastrous state. Linking to that article makes this article worse. Andries 14:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that the material on Arti is irrelevant. If an article is in "a disastrous shape", help fix it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
The digression about arti should not be here. How can you seriously doubt this? And if it should be here then at least provide references. But even after you provide references then I will continue to argue for either its deletion or its move to arti. Andries 15:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
What is exactly the problem with that material? Can you please explain? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
It digresses on an issue that is largely irrelevant for the DLM. It devotes three sentences to a general treatment of Arti. I can understand a treatment of Arti in the DLM, but the article does not do that. It gives a general treatment of arti that is totally out of place here. Andries 15:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I will find the references you request, but there is no need to add {{fact}} to each word in a sentence (LOL!). TaKe a deep breath, Andries! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Again, I will continue to argue for its move to arti, regardless if references are provided, with the exception of statements that are specific for the arti version used in the DLM or statements that describe how arti is performed in the DLM. Andries 15:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Why? Why text related to Aarti cannot be discussed here? I have a hard time understanding your motives. Please explain. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Because general articles should treat general subjects. I mean, this article is about the DLM and should only treat arti as it relates to the DLM and not digress about arti in general. For the same reason we do not mention criticism of communism in an article about an individual communist. This sounds to me so logical and natural that I really do not understand that anybody can disagree with this. Is this so difficult to understand or am I misssing something? Andries 16:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I see absolutely nothing wrong in providing context for readers. Most readers know nothing about arti, so I see no problem in a few words explaining what arti is, and how it is used in India. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
If you want to provide some context for the ignorant reader then provide the short Wikipedia definition or explain how Aarti and which version is used in the DLM. Do not digress on side issues. Andries 17:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I did not speak of the "ignorant" reader. That is abusive to our readers and I would suggest you refactor that comment. Providing context is our duty as editor os Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Arti

After I short visit to the library, I found that there are many, many versions of Arti, and vbery big differenes it applies to Hinduism a and Sikihsm. I ask for some patience until I gather all the material. It is very pertient to this article, because it is assumed that the arti sung to Maharaji is the same as Hinduism arti, but this is not the case. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Next time, I will use the same standards with you. Any material that you add that you do not provide references within 15 days, will be mercilessly deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Fifteen days is a lot: I have only 48 hours at Sathya Sai Baba and it will be clear that I considered the missing references a good excuse to remove a digression that I found off-topic. Andries 17:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

As an ex-member of the cult, DLM, having been in it from 81 to 85 I can confirm that Arti existed in several variations - the original translation from Hindi used in the cult was done by Guru Charanand, one of Maharaji's main early followers. Several other versions emerged,and the song, which could take 20 minutes to sing in full, was often abridged. Some problematic verses, iee, those referring to Guru Maharaj Ji as father/Mother, etc, were sometimes avoided,a nd the whole song was abandoned in western Ashrams after about 1984. User:arthurchappell

Pat Halley?

I have removed the Pat Halley section as it has nothing to do with Divine Light Mission.Momento 22:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

That was one of the most widely published incidents in the history of Prem Rawat and the DLM. Where do you want to put? I do not accept its deletion from Wikipedia. Andries 22:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


Marc Galanter

I think that this is a different marc Galanter. Galanter is a psychiatrist. Andries 01:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Then find a bio and disambiguate the article. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe this one is? [1] ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes. This may be the one. See [2]. Pleas ehelp write a short bio and disambiguate . Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Marc Galanter, M.D is one and the same in both links above, but not the Wiki article subject "Marc Galanter," who is a law professor (also in NY). FYI, there are excerts on EPO from Galanter's book, Cults: Faith Healing and Coercion chapter titled A Charismatic Religious Sect The Divine Light Mission. That book was published in 1989 and a 2nd edition was published in 1999. Galanter also published Spirituality and the Healthy Mind in 2005. Galanter has edited and written books published by American Psychiatric Publishing, as well as by Oxford Univ. Press. Galanter is the Director of the Division of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse and Professor of Psychiatry at New York University Medical Center in New York. Sylviecyn 15:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Andries and I found two Marc Galanter's Marc Galanter and Marc Galanter (MD). The one cited in this article is Marc Galanter (MD). 16:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I said above, but hadn't noticed that you created the Galanter, MD stub on May 14, 2006. Sylviecyn 13:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge issue

Object to merging "Past teachings" into this article. See comments on Talk:Prem Rawat. Sylviecyn 14:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Some duplication in the references

Refs [16] and [17] were the same as [19] and [20]. I tried to cure the problem by dropping the last two sentences from the Beliefs section. If I over-corrected, please fix. Note that there is STILL a duplication in the text (regarding the name change to Elan Vital) but it's between the introductory paragraph and the Evolution section at the end, which appears less serious. The whole article leaves a person wondering what happened after 1983. Does anyone feel like bringing the story down to the present day? Also references [4] through [13] appear to be telling the story of his accession to guruship over and over again, in similar wording, and with little difference, and it is not clear that this is necessary. Perhaps a few of these could be dropped, but I'm not the one to do it. EdJohnston 02:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hummel

I consolidated the source into one ref, as it was all from same book; attributed the text to Hummel rather than asserting his opinion as fact; corrected some spelling mistakes and grammar. I also removed the mention of Prem's brother as it was unsourced. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)ö

Fine. I think that there are still some grammar mistakes in the entry. I also have to add some diacritics to the German original. Andries 20:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure about this translation? "the 'mind' was declared the main enemy of direct religious experience. " ≈ jossi ≈

(talk) 21:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I admit that the translation of the sentence is incomplete
German original "Der junge Guru erklärt das konzeptionelle Denken, das auch in Deutschen Übersetzungen mit dem Englischen Wort >>mind<< bezeichnet wird, als Hauptfeind der unmittelbaren religösen Erfahrung."
English translation: "The young guru explains that the main enemy of direct religious experience is thinking in concepts that is called with the English word "mind" also in German translations."
My German is pretty basic and all I read there is something about "conceptional thinking". I hope that this is just a honest mistake, and not a POV interpretation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I admit that my translation should have included the equation of "Mind"=conceptional Thinking/Thinking in Concepts. Andries 21:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the problem Andries, because the Hummel quote confirms Rawat's own teachings, when he always said that the enemy of every premie is their mind and the concepts it produces, especially about himself and Knowledge. It's especially appropriate for the DLM article because when Elan Vital was DLM, the problematic "mind" was the main subject of discussion (satsangs) Sylviecyn 23:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, if there is an objection to having this quote here, perhaps it would be better placed in the main Rawat article under teachings. Sylviecyn 23:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
No one has a problem with Hummel's quote but several editors have a problem with Andries' inaccurate translation.Momento 01:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Otherwise is misleading. "Conceptual thinking" is considered antithesis of inner experiences, which by their nature are not related to intellect. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good example of why we should avoid foreign language sources altogether. The author is referring to other existing translations of Prem Rawat's words. He says: "The young guru has declared that conceptual thinking (which has been called by the English word 'mind' even in German translations) is the main enemy of a direct religious experience." There is no word in German for "mind" but most English-speaking readers would not know that, so this sentence, and others like it, are not translatable without ambiguity and confusion unless you put in a bunch of explanatory footnotes. Let's not. Rumiton 13:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Also the word Lehre in this context would be better translated as "doctrine." There was no systematic doctrine. There most certainly were systematic "teachings" as the German author well knew. They were the Knowledge. Rumiton 14:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think "teachings" is a better translation of "Lehre" than "doctrine". Andries 05:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Rumiton. The inaccurate translations are unacceptable. I'm also concerned that Hummel, Melton, Kronenberg, van der Lans and Derks? are all ordained Christian ministers. It may be necessary to preface their comments with "Rawat was closely studied by Christian scholars who concluded....." and then combine their comments. It is starting to look like undue weight and bias.Momento 21:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That could be done, I see no harm in that. Note that many scholars of religion and theologians, but not all, come from one or another faith. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good way to go. Nice and neutral. Rumiton 02:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


I have reverted Andries last edit because it was ungrammatical and because this is an article about DLM not Hummel or Prem Rawat or his father.Momento 10:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You reverted to a misleading version.
1. Hummel was not the leader of the EZW when his 1980 book was published. The relevant context reg. Hummel is that the quoted book was based on research at the Heidelberg uni, not so much that he was a pastor or that he later became the leader of the EZW.
2. Of course the philosophical and religious influences on Hans, the founder of the sect, are very relevant to this entry.
Andries 17:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
When I revert an ungrammatical and bloated edit, I do not have to certify that the proceeding version is correct. What you should be doing Andries is making grammatical, accurate and appropriate edits. Your last one wasn't.Momento 21:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Lehre. Andries, my Collins German-English Comprehensive Dictionary allows both meanings, but in the Ecclesiastical sense, which is Hummel's genre, it gives doctrine only. I believe to use "teachings" creates an absurdity. Of course things were taught, if only the words of songs. This is the point. Wars have started over the correct translation of words. I could give you many 20th Century examples, and you could probably think of others. This is an English language website, and we are having enough problems with agreeing on the meanings and intentions of English words. No doubt someone important wrote something once in Cantonese about Prem Rawat. Who can say exactly what it means? Let's not go to other languages.
Has anyone seen Vassyana lately? Rumiton 11:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Rumiton, I know enough to be able to compare the DLM's teachings with the teachings of other religious groups and Hummel is fully right regarding the lack of systematic teachings in the DLM. In other groups, meditation techniques are only a small part of a large and systematic set of teachings. Andries 05:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I did not notice ecclesiastical language in Hummel's book. Andries 16:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Vassyana reported some massive computer problems early April. No word from him/her since. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

From Hummel, Reinhart Indische Mission und neue Frömmigkeit im Westen. Religiöse Bewegungen in westlichen Kulturen, Stuttgart 1980, ISBN 3-17-005609-3,

pp.76-77: "Eine systematisch entwickelte Lehre hat die Divine Light Mission weder zur Zeit des Vaters Śhrī Hans noch des Sohnes besessen. Beide haben darin eher einen Vorzug als einen Mangel gesehen. Hatte der Vater sich vornehmlich als >>Guru der Armen<< verstanden und sich in einer bilderreichen Sprache mehr um praktische Anwendbarkeit als um theoretische Durchdringung bemüht, so blieb doch der Inhalt seiner Satsangs auf dem Hintergrund der Hinduistischen Tradition klar verständlich. Die Satsangs jedoch, die der Sohn im Westen gehalten hat und die mit einem Minimum hinduistischer Terminologie und Konzepte auskommen, müssen für den nichthinduistischen Hörer vage bleiben. Der junge Guru erklärt das konzeptionelle Denken, das auch in deutschen Übersetzungen mit dem englischen Wort >>mind<< bezeichnet wird, als Hauptfeind der unmittelbaren religösen Erfahrung. So ist es nicht verwunderlich, daβ von seinen Anhängern nur wenig Handfestes über die DLM-lehre zu erfahren ist. Andererseits eröffent ihnen der Mangel an vorgegebenen Konzepten einen Freiraum für Äuβerungen einer spontanen Subjektivität, die wohltuend vom unselbständigen Reproduzieren autoritativ verkündenter Lehren absticht, wie man es vor allem dei den Anhängern der ISKCON antrifft. Wie auch immer die Bewertung ausfallen mag - die geistige Konturlosigkeit der Bewegung fällt allen Beobachtern auf.
Im Zentrum steht bei Vater und Sohn die vierfache Meditationstechnik, die vier >>Kriyas<<, die Sri Hans von Svami Sarupanand gelernt hatte. [..]"

"

pp.78: "Innerhalb dieses eklektischen Denken dominiert der Einfluβ der in Nordindien beheimaten Sant-Tradition, der schon in der Geschichte des Radhasoami Satsang wirksam war. Von ihr bestimmt ist die Ablehnung äußerlicher Rituale und Zeremonien und die Forderung, das Göttliche im eigenen Inneren zu suchen; damit verbunden die Polemik gegen den Trennenden Charakter der in Äuβerlichkeiten estarrten Religionen und gegen die Kastentrennung; ferner die Ablehnung der Askese zugunsten des Lebens im Stande des Haushalters, wie Sri Hans es selbst geführt hat; die Ablehnung der Bilderverehrung und die Konzentration auf den Guru als die Manifestation des Göttlichen; [..]"

Hello Andries. I am getting interested in Hummel's work, mainly because Lutheran ideology intrigues and horrifies me. I am in some doubt as to the meaning of the excerpt you give because of the many mispellings. eg your "had" could be either hat or hatte. Sorry to seem fussy, but would you mind going through and correcting the typos? Thank you. Rumiton 11:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I will check the type-errors. Andries 11:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I can also translate but this will take some time. Andries 12:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Give it to me typo-free and I will do a translation. Then we can compare. I do see more what you are saying about Hummel from this longer excerpt. Rumiton 13:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I just removed a few of my type-errors, though your main problem may be the German original. Andries 14:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No need for sarcasm. I just read the above and I take back what I said. I kind of like the guy. I'll try to get a translation done tomorrow night. Rumiton 16:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I was not sarcastic. Andries 18:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't perfect, but I think it shows the tone of Hummel's writing.

pp76-77. Neither in the time of the father, Shri Hans, nor in that of the son, did the Divine Light Mission possess a systematically developed set of teachings. Both saw [doctrines] as presenting more problems than advantages. Although the father saw himself primarily as the Guru of the Poor, and his imaginative speeches (Andries A.: discourses that were rich in metaphors) were more concerned with practical applications than with saturated theory (Andries A.: penetrating theory), yet his satsangs could always be understood against a background of Hindu tradition. But the satsangs that his son held in the west, which he managed with a minimum of Hindu terms and concepts, still remain vague for the non-Hindu listener. The young Guru explains that conceptual thinking, translated with the English word “mind” in German translations also, is the main enemy of direct religious experience. It is therefore hardly surprising that little firm information about DLM teachings can be obtained from his followers. On the other hand, the lack of professed concepts allows them a freedom of expression which is spontaneous and personal, and which makes an agreeable contrast with the unexamined reproduction of received teachings which one especially finds in the devotees of Iskcon. However they may judge the group, the lack of conceptual boundaries in the movement is clear to all observers. (Andries A.: Whatever judgment one may have about the movement, its spiritual lack of contours is clear to all observers.)

In central position with both father and son stand the four meditation techniques, the kriyas, which Shri Hans learned from Swami Sarupanand.

P78. Within this eclectic thinking, the influence of the Sant tradition from Northern India, which was strong in the history of Radhasoami Satsang, was dominant. This is certainly the origin of the rejection of external rituals and ceremonies, and the call to seek God within oneself. Connected with this was the argument against the divisive nature of ossified, externally based religions and the caste system. (Andries A.:Related with this was his rhetoric against the divisive nature of religions that were fossilized in show and the caste system.) Further, the rejection of asceticism in favour of the life of the householder, which Shri Hans himself led, the refusal to worship images, and the concentration on the Guru as the manifestation of the divine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumiton (talk • contribs)

Thanks, Rumiton, for the translation. I would argue that the current edit uses selectively Hummel's words. Please try and summarize Hummels views in a more accurate way than currently depicted in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I have some problems (may be it is just taste differences) with the translation. I will write my alternative translation of some sentences with (Andries A.: [..]) within Rumiton's text. Andries 19:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Andries. I agree you are right about "rich in metaphores." The word metaphore did not come to me, for some reason. "...geistige Konturlosigkeit" is difficult, but I don't believe "spiritual lack of contours" is correct. Geistig is quite a precise word, and here means something more like "mental" or "intellectual." Spiritual is so vague as to be almost meaningless. I shall do some more tonight. Rumiton 03:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Andries, can you supply me with Hummel's German text for the assertion that Hans was "influenced by the Bhagavad Gita," and this gave him an "emphasis on the practical life." Thank you. Rumiton 06:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It is in the history of the article. I still have to check for spelling. Please all be careful not to remove it again.
page 74 "Seine eigene Position wird durch seine haufige Berufung auf Kabir, Nanak, Mira Bai und andere Heilige des Sant-Tradition, sowie auf die Bhagavad Gita deutlich. Von der ersteren stammt eine Reduktion des Hinduismus auf die innere Realisierung des Gottlichen und die Guruverehrung, von der letzteren seine Betonung des Praktischen Lebens."
Andries 05:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that Andries. I can certainly see how the Sants might have influenced him, but I am a bit bewildered how anyone might obtain an "emphasis on the practical life" from the Bhagavad Gita. But he said it, we quote it. Rumiton 11:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Not difficult to understand at all for me. The Bhagavad Gita put emphasis on fulfilling wordly duties as a sacrifice to Krishna. Krishna told Arjuna to fight because this was his wordly duty and that this was superior to life as an ascetic. Andries 19:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I see what you mean, but I have always read that story as a parable. Killing off your friends and relatives to mean stamping out beloved negative tendencies, anger, hatred, lust etc. Rumiton 12:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Just because he said it, doesn't mean we quote it. There are hundreds of pages of scholastic material on Rawat. The editors job is to reduce 100's of pages to a page or two that represents the total. Commonly held views by several scholars take precedence over one scholar's unshared opinion.Momento 20:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Also please the section where Hummel refers to Hans' "reduction of Hinduism." Thanks. Rumiton 10:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And Haan's quoted text, especially about western DLM operating "to the expense of the social side." I can read basic Dutch, but I'll get a Dutch friend to have a look over it. Thanks. Rumiton 11:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It is on page 44, 45 of his article. Please give me more time. Andries 12:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Kranenborg wrote more or less the same as Haan about the neglect of social work in the West, but more strongly worded and in a more critical tone. Andries 12:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeanne Messer

Who is Jeanne Messer? and why is she described as a "follower" ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org/forum/posts/13372.html http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org/forum/posts/13373.html http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org/forum/posts/13374.htmlAndries 16:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
What? Since when can you make assertions based on hearsay in a chat room? Please do not use these as sources to assert these opinions. You know very well that these type of edits are totally unacceptable. I have also removed some of these links above as per BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
If you do not want to hear the answer then please do not ask questions. Andries 17:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
That flippant answer does not address the concern I raised about your editing behavior, Andries. Do not add material to articles based on unreliable sources, period. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I get the message. She is probably introduced in the book by Glock and Bellah as a premie. Andries 18:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
More ungrounded speculation? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Deprogramming

What is the reference for stating that "deprogrammed" ex-members became "vocal critics" of the organisation? Rumiton 13:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, does anyone know what a "Pretap" is? Rumiton 13:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a typo for PremPal. "Vocal critics" is Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/scholarsMomento 19:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Messer

Found a whole lot of Messer "Guru Maharaj,li and the Divine Light Mission," in Robert Bellah and Charles Glock, eds., The New Religious Consciousness (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976), pp. 54-55,' and put it here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/scholars#Jeanne_Messer Momento 06:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Clean up

This article needs an over haul, it has lost its way. It should be about DLM, not Rawat's teachings etc. It is also lacking in sources, cites and balance. I'm going to start on it.Momento 04:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The first thing to go is the Haley pie incident. This article is about DLM not the atypical behaviour of two followers out of 50,000.Momento 04:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

God, yes. What a convoluted mess. What happened here? The Beliefs and Practices section seems to be more about philosophers, preachers and parsons than about DLM. I'll help too. Rumiton 07:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Made a start at cleaning up. Needs more polishing and readability.Momento 00:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I've done some changes, too. It's still a bit verbose, I think. Rumiton 15:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


There seems a lot of added material that doesn't have any sources.Momento 21:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Where do you mean? Rumiton 02:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

"Around this time the anti-cult movement was reaching its peak, and new religious movements were seen as participating in mind control of adherents. Kidnapping of adult sect members with physical and mental assault was taking place, and was often seen as justified, even by courts. Following this treatment, several deprogrammed ex-members became vocal critics of the mission". Where is the source for this?Momento 04:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Deprogrammed ex-members is from Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America. General background is from deprogramming. Is a Wiki rule offended here? Rumiton 10:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You would certainly have to cite the source. And does it say "deprogrammed ex-members". I wonder if the there is any need to include " ex-members became vocal critics of the mission", it applies to virtually every religion or NRM.Momento 20:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the book referred to, the quote has been in the article for some time. I think it's all kind of interesting as a measure of the opposition Prem Rawat faced and as a sign of the times. There were passions that are hard to relate to today. But no biggie. Rumiton 11:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Downton's views

Downton's views should not be mentioned twice. Please stop adding contents that is already there a few sentences earlier. Andries 18:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Since material was added by you, the sentence you keep deleting misses an important aspect. I removed the dup and added the cite in the correct chronological order. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Correct chhronological order is first Downton and then Lans and Derks. Derks and Van der Lans wrote a comment on Downton and they wrote after 1975 i.e. also after 1976. Andries 19:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
It is no about when they wrote something, but about which years they wrote about. That is what I meant by chronological. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Derks and Van der Lans "After 1975" is later than Downton's "by 1976". Also I think that the comment on Downton should be after what Downton wrote. Otherwise it is not clear what Derks and Van Der Lans commented on. Andries 21:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
There's too much in this article that is not correctly attributed.Momento 21
09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that you are on the intent to drag me to an editwar. I will not give you that pleasure, Andries. For the record, I keep finding your editing behavior to be a disgrace. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

And I think that your edits are misguided. Fee free to file a request for comments. Andries 14:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I will do whatever I see necessary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Lede

Thanks for changing that Rumiton, I was about to do the same.Momento (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Overview of Page

I just arrived here, though most of you know me from recent editing of Prem Rawat. A few big picture thoughts -- perhaps someone can clue me in without me repeating past thrashes.

1. I can't believe how little there is about DLM in India! 6 years and millions of adherents under Shri Hans are simply ignored on this page, not to mention how DLM evolved after the India/rest of the world split in 1974.

2. I don't see how the Halley incident can be excluded. It was a notable controversy, and the attackers were by all accounts DLM members. Whether they were typical or not doesn't matter. Notable controversies rarely arise from typical members. Besides that's obviously an OR argument.

3. Categories are a total mess. Why is a description of the early years of DLM under "Beliefs and Practices"? I think the structure in Prem Rawat is a good model -- start with narrative development, in large blocks, followed by meta-issues (teachings or beliefs and practices, criticism, etc. Westerization certainly is a good idea for one narrative section, as in P.R. Perhaps "DLM- India" should be one section for the post-split period (or whatever name the organization there took). "Elan Vital" is a logical section heading for discussing the years after that change.

4. A lot of the work we have done on Prem Rawat, esp. in regards to Millenium '73 and Westernization, is applicable here. How are we distinguishing what belongs on the Prem Rawat page vs. what belongs here? For example, a lot of the detail on P.R. in reception about # of adherents seems more applicable on this page.

5. Sources. Can we agree on a single location for discussion of sources for Prem Rawat & DLM, so we don't have to repeat discussions? Perhaps we can agree to use the Prem Rawat talk /scholars page as a staging ground for consensus sources.

BTW, of course Jean Messer is a devotee of Rawat, and she is the first to admit it. She is totally upfront about it in Glock and Bellah. Or, if you prefer, here a source that says it in so many words. "The Limits of 'Coercive Persuasion' as an Explanation for Conversion to Authoritarian Sects", Political Psychology, Vol @ #2 Summer 1980 p34 fn8 == "Ms. Messer is a devotee of Guru Maharaj-Ji" It's on J-stor. It's hard to see how anyone in good faith can cite Messer -- so must have read G&B -- and claim to need proof that she is a devotee. Msalt (talk) 07:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

6. Succession box at top of page lists "Key People " with Prem Rawat as the current one. Does he have an official role with the DLM/Elan Vital? Shouldn't this somehow reflect the split into 2 organizations? Shouldn't we list the actual leader of the organization, rather than using the weasel words "key people"? You could say "Object of Veneration" but that feels weird. Msalt (talk) 07:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

7. I added external links to Elan Vital and 'Manav Utthan Sewa Samiti', which is the apparent successor to DLM - India. Since they are both self-published organiational sites by the (split) subject of the article, I assume that will be non-controversial. Msalt (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

All good questions, Msalt. You can check other articles on similar subjects and see how the treatment of an organization vs. the treatment of a biography have been addressed. That does not mean that you have to follow a specific way of doing so, so there is no shortcut to discussing and reaching consensus. If you need help with sources, please let me know. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Section titles

Section titles do not need book title capitalization. Instead of "Founding And Early Years In India", simply use "Founding and early years in India". Thanks ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Didn't know that, thanks.Msalt (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Reorganized the Sections

OK, I reorganized the sections, doing my best to avoid any changes that might be controversial. Basically, I reorganized the existing iformation and added information about the DLM in the 1960s under Shri Hans, which I took from his Wikipedia page and Melton, as well as some basic information about the DLM's successor in India. In reorganizing, I followed the lead of the Prem Rawat page, creating sections for major chronological parts of the narrative (early years in India, Succession, International Expansion, and Leadership split). Material about succession was repeated in various places around the page, so I created a section for it and pulled it together.

I believe it is much more clear and easy to read, but I welcome all input. Msalt (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Not bad, Msalt. Just note that there is no need to wikilink multiple times to the same article (such as Hans Ji Maharaj). Once linked once, no need to re-link. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I remain wary of criticism for unsourced comments under BLP, as you might imagine, so it's hard to know when to leave something uncited.
I know that the alternate names for Rawat have been a sore point for some, though for the life of me I can't figure out why. In this case, since we are talking about 1966, they seem unavoidable, but do you think we should move them from the lead to the Succession section? Msalt (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks pretty good, if a bit long. Point by point: I don't know why the names thing became so controversial, either. Perhaps because Sant Ji and Balyogeshwar were childhood names, unused since, or possibly because in the western culture name changing might be seen as vaguely disreputable. I never heard of Hansadeh but Hansadesh seems familiar. I don't have a source for that. I guess the problem with the original Indian DLM is the lack of English language sources, not any reluctance by anybody to have it described. Rumiton (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I saw a reference somewhere to description of Shri Hans and the early Indian DLM in some very early books published by the American or English DLMs. Obviously I'm vague on it, but if someone has copies of those, I'm sure they would qualify under the self-publishing rule for either non-controversial, or self-attributed statements.
I'm not sure why there would be a lack of English sources, it's either the first or second most common language in India, and really the most universal. Maybe since DLM was focused in the North though it used more Hindi. I'm a bit blurry at this point but again I have a dim memory of reading (maybe in Talk: Prem Rawat) that either Prem Rawat or his father actually taught in English when in India. It could also be that the material is not scanned, logged in databases or uploaded to the web, even if available in India in English. That makes total sense.
Hansadesh -- you're exactly right. My mistake, I'll fix it. Msalt (talk) 05:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's a bit long, and I actually cut out quite a bit of simple duplication, but I wanted to avoid anything controversial in making such a big change all at once. Now we can start cutting..... Msalt (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Changes in students outside India

There are a number of problems with this section that I think can be best resolved by eliminating it entirely. This would also help with the length of the article. For instance

1) It's imbalanced and a problem of weight to only look at Rawat's DLM outside of India, vs. the Indian DLMs under Shri Hans and Satpal. Yet I doubt there are scholarly studies of the other two for comparison.

2) One can argue, but many academics feel that Downton's book Sacred Journeys is simply not scholarly. (as opposed to, say, his journal article of about the same time). Yes, I have citations from scholarly journals.

3) the last 3 paragraphs of the section describe the Westernization process and appear totally unconnected to the subject of the section.

4) It has a sense of cheerleading, or POV, esp. given the active role of devotees of the only branch described in editing this article.

5) There are negative studies on psychology of DLM initiates too. However, rather than adding these, I think it would be best to sidestep the entire debate because....

6) it's fundamentally not part of an encyclopedic article on an organization to analyze whether membership helps or hurts members. You can look at a wide range of articles on other groups from the Elks to the Salvation Army to Toastmasters to the Church of Scientology -- none of the Wikipedia articles discuss good or bad effects on members. We can assume that anyone joining an organization feels that it improves their lives, but whether or not we have scholarly studies verifying that, it is not a typical thing to discuss in an encyclopedic article about it.

7) Similarly, none of the print encyclopedias of religion I have seen that include the DLM discuss positive or negative effects of membership (the various Melton publications, etc.). Encyclopedias are the not the best sources for facts, but they are the best source for what's considered encyclopedic.

All agreed? Msalt (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, there being no objection, I'm going to go ahead.

I agree that the "Changes section" should go but what about "Criticism" section. If we are removing the benefits - lower drug use and reduction of symptoms of psychological distress after they joined the group (Galanter), increased energy levels, an increased awareness of coincidences and a tendency to see them as divine interventions, as well as improvements in their marriage and work life (Messer), why keep Levine's comments. Particularly as he says the criticism " was perceived by outsiders, particularly parents".Momento (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Momento, no doubt the Criticism section can use plenty of work, but given the heat over at Prem Rawat, I think the best course is for us to move a step at a time, as deliberately as possible. In case it's not obvious, I am focusing on the least controversial moves first. I don't see any other course with any hope of consensus. Msalt (talk) 05:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Msalt, I'm wondering why this article's focus is of Divine Light Mission founded by Rawat's father. It's true that Shri Hans founded DLM in India, but that's about the extent of it except for the two years Rawat's mother and brothers were in the U.S. DLM in the U.S. had nothing to do with his father. It was incorporated in 1972 in Colorado and by 1974 the family split had taken place, so for a full 11 years, DLM International Headquarters in the U.S. operated completely idependently from the Indian DLM or DUO. I'm also wondering why there is so much in this article about the spirituality of DLM when it in fact is the exact same corporation as Elan Vital. This article is pretty bad, too. It's lacking a lot of correct information, is misleading. It's gonna take some time to fix this thing. What I think has happened is that in an effort to distance Prem Rawat from DLM and to give Rawat closer association to today's version of DLM which is Elan Vital, this article has become way too large with strange with inaccurate statements that make no sense. I recommend that the DLM and Elan Vital articles be combined because they are one and the same organization/corporation. It was a simple corporate name-change with the state of Colorado that brought DLM to become Elan Vital. Any changes in how it was run and changes in the cult can be explained in one article. Unless there are other such corporations that warrant two articles because they've had a name change, it doesn't make sense to have two for one. Did I mention there are many inaccuracies in the article? Let me count the ways. Sylviecyn (talk) 01:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess I just disagree. The Divine Light Mission is the organization of the continuous line of teaching that began with Shri Hans in India, was succeeded there by Prem Rawat (under different names), and split into two branches via court order in 1974. It seems very clear to me that this is one organization that deserves one article.
Now, you can make a very strong case that the Elan Vital article should be consolidated with this one. But the same would be true of the M.U.S.S. organization founded by Satpal. Conversely, if Elan Vital remains separate, than clearly M.U.S.S. deserves an article as well. Msalt (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
RE MUSS, this is somewhat interesting. Religion is so all-pervasive in India that I doubt whether we could find anything like the scholarly appraisals that are available in the west. I might be wrong, but I don't think attempts at being objective about spirituality are very popular over there. Also MUSS wold be seen as pretty traditional Hinduism, so it would be like an Italian writer doing an objective analysis of the beliefs and practices of the Catholic Church. Might not be burned at the stake these days, but life could be made pretty uncomfortable. Rumiton (talk) 12:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
There are not enough sources for an article on MUSS, attesting to lack of notability. In all the research I have done, I found only one book that mentions it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Despite claims that it was a "mere name change" the numerous sources on the subject say otherwise. It was not merw name change, but a very substantial change. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to hear more about that, Jossi. And it's an interesting question. It's unlikely that even very substantial changes would cause Wikipedia to create a second article on one organization, if the name didn't change. And we don't have separate Prem Rawat and Guru Maharaji Ji pages, even though he (or his notable public persona) underwent a very similar parallel change at the same time as the organization. So I guess I'm inclined to think that all of these variants of DLM should be on one page.
As for M.U.S.S and a lack of sources, I'm not so sure about that. I found a lot of additional material on Sat Pal, all from India, in web searches by simply punctuating his name differently (as Satpal Maharaj). I'm wary of American-centric or British-centric blinders here; just because sources are not in the online and offline databases we prefer, or not on the web, does not mean they don't exist. There are more English speakers in India than in the U.S. and Britain combined, so I don't think our viewpoint should automatically determine what's on En.Wikipedia.org. For example, I found a newspaper article in India that said that SatPal has become very prominent, while Prem "sank into oblivion" after the lawsuit that split Indian DLM. From an Indian point of view, things look very different, and that is a contrasting view that should also be included here. Msalt (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Any changes in how it was run and changes in the cult can be explained in one article. Please stop the baiting, Sylviecyn. If you have an opinion about the subject, keep it to yourself. Unless you want your group to start being characterized in talk pages on pejorative terms as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

EL section

Apologetics Index (a self-published site of Anton Hein) as an EL? He does not have an article in WP for lack of notability, neither his website which belongs to Christian apologetics ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Elan Vital

The Elan Vital indicates that the Divine Light Mission was set up by Elan Vital in 1971. 84.9.48.220 (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You have it totally wrong, and I am starting to suspect you are deliberately time-wasting. According to the Colorado Secretary of State, the DLM changed its name to Elan Vital in 1983. Read the Elan Vital article. Rumiton (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This person has posted anonymously on several occasions. I have corrected the EV article.Momento (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed the IP. Shopping for a blocking, I think. Rumiton (talk) 13:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I just removed a section named "Criticism." The size meant it was undue weight to one POV, and also I think it was an extraordinary claim. No other source that I am aware of claims that the Divine Light Mission forced all its members into poverty and celibacy, though there could be value in reporting on the lifestyle in the ashrams which were run by DLM, in which a percentage voluntarily spent some time. Rumiton (talk) 11:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing the entire criticism section is a bad way of fixing a weight problem. If there was a specific problem with one assertion why didn't you just remove that one part? Please restore the part that isn't a problem.
As for the assertion that followers live in poverty, I just read an L.A. Times article in which Malibu neighbors complain that followers had to live out of dumpsters. So it odes not appear to be an extraordinary claim. However if the group has made a rebuttal or counterclaim that can be included too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
There are many scholarly sources that describe the DLM's ashrams, so it would not be a problem to add material about that aspect. Criticism can be added as well alongside other material on the ashram's vows. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
There are many scholarly sources on the ashrams at Talk:Prem_Rawat/scholars. It would be a good idea to summarize all that material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The statement about "disbanding" the DLM is simply inaccurate, or at best misleading. I see the Melton footnote, but in this case he was either unclear or wrong. By all accounts, EV is the same organization as DLM, so it's very odd phrasing to say "the mission was disbanded" (with a lowercase m) -- the Mission was not disbanded. The Ashrams were disbanded, is that what he meant? In any case, the fact that exact wording of one source (a tertiary source at that) is quoted in the lede -- with weird punctuation -- is a sign that this is not a consensus view, and may be an example of [WP:SYN] (synthesis, using a source selectively to make a point).

More neutral, encyclopedic phrasing would say something like "In the early 1980s, the DLM in America was transformed as ashrams were closed and elements of Indian culture were removed, marked by a name change to Elan Vital." Sound fair? Msalt (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the encyclopedia phrasing is more neutral. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 06:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

Singer

  • In the early 1980s Dr. Margaret Singer included the DLM in her list of cults. In 1979, Singer mentioned the DLM as one of a set of groups that have "intense relationships between followers and a powerful idea or leader", in an article in Psychology Today.[47].
That is not "criticism", but an observation.
The summary of the cited material is misleading The text reads: The term "cult" is always one of individual judgment. It has been variously applied to groups involved in beliefs and practices just off the beat of traditional religions; to groups making exploratory excursions into non-Western philosophical practices; and to groups involving intense relationships between followers and a powerful idea or leader. The people have studied, however, come from groups in the last, narrow band of the spectrum: groups such as the Children of G{od, the Unification Church of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, the Krishna Consciousness movement, the Divine Light Mission, and the Church of Scientology. )
Per WP:MOS we should not use titles in names
I propose to summarize Singer's point staying close to the source, and moving the text to "Beliefs and practices" where it belongs

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to moving the material. How shall we summarize Singer's statements about the subject? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you can do that yourself. You added the material, so give it a go. Just moving there does not work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
It looks to me like the existing text is accurate. If you can suggest how to make it more accurate I'm interested. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
You added it, not me. So, you can do the honors in this case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Since no one is saying how it's incorrect, and since it looks correct to me, there's nothing left to do. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
It looks accurate to me. Msalt (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, it is not. There is no "list of cults", and Singer only says that he "studied some groups" in the "last band of the spectrum", which "involves intense relationships between followers and a powerful idea or leader", without any specific details about any of these. (Which is typical of Singer's poor scholarship, see DIMPAC, btw) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The only objection to the existing text that I see here is to the first sentence, concerning the "list of cults". I guess we'll have to find a source for it. The other material seems properly expressed and doesn't involve any detail. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
FYI, the text of the full Psych Today article has been posted here: [3] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I have that paper, thanks. As for "her list of cults", please delete until sources are forthcoming, I could not find any mention of "her list" anywhere. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I've added a "fact" tag so that editors will know to look for a source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
See http://www.cultfaq.org/coming-out-of-the-cults.html – there is not a list as such, but she gives a number of examples of a particular type of group. Perhaps this is what is meant by "list". Jayen466 18:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
We are already using that source. What is missing is a source for the first sentence. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I know. Busy IRL today. Did not read the discussion properly. Jayen466 18:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
There is a mention of a publication by West and Singer, 1980, on this page: http://bernie.cncfamily.com/sc/mc3_salibo.htm Could be something to do with it. The majority of the new religious movements can be classified, according to Singer, into ten types: 1. Neo-Christian religious cults; 2) Hindu and Eastern religious cults; 3) occult, witchcraft and satanism cults; 4) spiritualist cults; 5) Zen and other Sino-Japanese philosophical cults; 6) race cults; 8) psychological cults; 9) political cults; 10) certain communal and self-help or self-improvement groups that, over time, become transformed into cults. (West and Singer, 1980, p. 3249). Singer herself has studied members of groups where an intensive relationship between the leader and the devotees is a dominant feature. Among those specifically mentioned by her are Jim Jones's People's Temple, the Church of Scientology, the Divine Light Mission, Synanon, the Worldwide Church of God, the Unification Church, the Hare Krishna, and Transcendental Meditation. Jayen466 18:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Other

  • The movement was criticized for emphasizing the superiority of subjective emotional experience over intellect.[44] The sociologist Ralph Larkin with Daniel A. Foss wrote in 1978 that the DLM "emphasized formal structure without substantive content."[45] In response the religious scholar Dr. Ron Geaves, who is a student of Prem Rawat, accused them of bias, pointing to the number of students that were attracted to the DLM. [46]
These break NPOV, providing one viewpoint without context and missing other viewpoints on the subject. For example, viewpoints by Hunt and Mangalwadi, Vishal and Hoeksem (see last sentence in lead of Prem Rawat

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Which viewpoint needs context, and what context does it need? Is this the ref you're saying should also be summarized here?:
  • The Divine Light Mission has not been interested in teachings and philosophies. Balyogeshwar and his brother have consistently rejected "theoretical" knowledge as "useless." I found the DLM devotees most difficult to talk to, because they neither wanted to teach their philosophy to me nor answer philosophical questions and objections. Their one comment was "Take the practical knowledge of the experience of Sound and Light and all your doubts and questions will be answered."
If so I agree it should be summarized in this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The movement was criticized for emphasizing the superiority of subjective emotional experience over intellect. Vishal Mangalwadi wrote in 1977 that the DLM was not "interested in teachings and philosophies". Instead, he wrote, they encouraged him to practice the techniques of knowledge in order to have his questions answered. The sociologist Ralph Larkin with Daniel A. Foss wrote in 1978 that the DLM "emphasized formal structure without substantive content." In response Ron Geaves, a religious scholar and a student of Prem Rawat, accused Larkin and Foss of bias, pointing to the number of students that were attracted to the DLM.
How's that? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
You are missing counter points made by other scholars, otherwise, it is a good start. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Which points? What's missing? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Hunt's, Chryssides, Melton, Price, Lippy, and many others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Please suggest some text to cover their points. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Time Magazine

  • An article which mentioned the Divine Light Mission appeared in Time Magazine in 1997[49].
I fail to see why this is included, and why it is included in a section called "criticism".

Finally, I see no reason why not move whatever is left in that section, to other sections of the article, for a better NPOV presentation of the subject. See {{criticism section}} for a rationale. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added a quote from the TIME article to make the sentence more sensible. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
An article which mentioned the Divine Light Mission appeared in Time Magazine in 1997 that referred to the DLM as part of the "cultism of the '70s".[48]. That is not what the article says, Will. Please stay close to the source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
It sure seems to be what the article is saying:
  • The modern era of cultism dates to the 1970s, when the free inquiry of the previous decade led quite a few exhausted seekers into intellectual surrender. Out from the rubble of the countercultures came such groups as the Children of God and the Divine Light Mission, est and the Church of Scientology, the robotic political followers of Lyndon LaRouche and the Unification Church of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon. On Nov. 18, 1978, the cultism of the '70s arrived at its dark crescendo in Jonestown, Guyana, where more than 900 members of Jim Jones' Peoples Temple died at his order, most by suicide
You don't think that they consider the DLM to be part of the "modern era of cultism dates to the 1970s"? That's what it looks like to me. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't. I re-read it, and it does not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Which groups do you think TIME is referring to when they write of "the cultism of the '70s"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems very clear to me that Time is referring to DLM among other groups. Msalt (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
None, specifically. It speaks of of "exhausted seekers". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, when Time writes about cults in the 1970s, and then lists Children of God and the Divine Light Mission, est and the Church of Scientology, you don't think they are referring to those groups as part of the "cultism of the '70s"? If so I think your interpretation of their writing is incorrect. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't refer to "Divine Light Mission as part of the "cultism of the '70s", it says "the modern era of cultism dates to the 1970s". It says "Out from the rubble of the countercultures came the Divine Light Mission". Surely that is clear.Momento (talk) 01:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
You've misquoted it. "Out from the rubble of the countercultures came such groups as the Children of God and the Divine Light Mission, est and the Church of Scientology, the robotic political followers of Lyndon LaRouche and the Unification Church of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon." An plain interpretation of the material is that the listed groups are part of the cultism of the '70s. If you refuse to acknowledge obvious material then that's disruptive. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Just in case it isn't obvious-enough already, see the title of the article: "The Lure of the Cult"[4]. It isn't about the rubble of the counterculture or exhausted seekers. It's about cults. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
If there is any doubt, we have to take the sentence in which DLM is mentioned.Momento (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
There isn't any doubt. But the solution may be to quote the paragraph. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
No doubt, and no problem that needs a solution. Momento does not have a veto when acting disruptively. See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Msalt (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
When in doubt stick closer to the source "Out from the rubble of the countercultures came the Divine Light Mission".Momento (talk) 05:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Renaming section

Also, I've re-named the section "reception" to make it clearer that these are general views of how the group has been received. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
There is material all over the article that is also related to general views, but you have not moved these. Calling a criticism section, "reception" does not work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
We can move the material on general views to the reception section if you like. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, give it a go. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm having trouble finding much in the way of general views outside of the intro. This is the only bit I'd think of moving to "reception"
  • According to scholars, Prem Rawat's desire to consolidate his power and authority over the movement in the United States resulted in greater formalization: rules and regulation for ashram living, standards for recruited "candidates," and pressure toward certifying the movement's teachers. [29] In the early 1980s Margaret Singer included the DLM in her list of cults. In 1979, Singer mentioned the DLM as one of a set of groups that have "intense relationships between followers and a powerful idea or leader", in an article in Psychology Today.
But I don't think that making that move would improve the article. Is there some material I'm overlooking? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The "beliefs and practices" section, for starters has material that is relevant. maybe you need to re-look at this whole idea of a reception section and conflate all aspects about DLM discussed by scholars. I need to go now, so I will catch up tomorrow. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
If you check you'll see I propose above moving half of the "beliefs and practices" section, but also discard the idea bacause I don't see how it would really improve the article. Perhaps you can give a more detailed suggestion when you return. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I've just read the "Reception" section. It reads like a "Criticism" section and that isn't fair or NPOV. Didn't you find one non-negative comment?Momento (talk) 01:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
It's ready and waiting for positiv comments. Go for it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Added some Downton. His book "Sacred Journeys" studies DLM from 72 to 77 and is the most comprehensive study available.Momento (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I have strong objections to Momento's additions. They clearly further Momento's POV and amount to cheerleading. They are not about the reception of Rawat -- instead, they list alleged benefits to users of Rawat's teachings. Furthermore, by all accounts what it means to follow Rawat today is drastically different than in the early 1970s, yet this section implies that these benefits are current. Furthermore, "Sacred Journeys" is not a scholarly book, according to reviews by scholars in several scholarly journals, but is presented as such here. And Momento has cherry picked the most positive findings, rather than representing a neutral and fair summary of them. Msalt (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
1: The book is about DLM not Rawat. Downton's comments about the initial reception, motivation and experience of the early converts is an extremely valuable insight and his PPOV not mine.
2: Downton is a professor emeritus of Sociology at the College of Arts and Sciences of the University of Colorado at Boulder where DLM was HQ'd. The book is published by Columbia University Press. It is the result of a five year study. It's scholarship is not in doubt.
3: Your OR about "following" Rawat is irrelevant, and also misinformed, you would do well to do some research.
4: The comments are not "cherry picked" they are Downton's summaries not mine.
As Downton says " I have talked to many people in the last five years who were skeptical and sometimes antagonistic toward Guru Maharaj Ji and Divine Light Mission. Yet, most were not very well informed about either the guru or the movement, nor were they interested in learning how premies might be benefiting from their involvement. For example, one woman whom I had met at a party in 1973 nearly shouted, "Oh, I am quite willing to accept all the different spiritual movements in the country, but not the one with the boy guru. That one I can't stand." As we talked, it became apparent she knew little more than what she had read in the newspapers about the Mission. In fact, she had never even met, let along talked at length with, a premie. Because she felt Divine Light Mission was contrary to her values, she was more than ready to condemn and reject it".Momento (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

House of Delegates Panel

The link to that source is broken, does anyone have that article. I would like to check for context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Clearly a cherry-picked quote for effect, without any indication of the counter arguments presented, and that the congressional panel never formed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you define "cherry picked"? I don't think it's taken out of context. There's little other mention of the group in the article. It's basically saying that these groups were descibed by someone at the hearing.
  • In addition to the Unification Church, the Church of Scientology and Guru Maharaj Ji's Divine Light Mission were singled out at the hearing as cults that employ manipulative techniques and turn children against their parents.
If you want a counterargument you might check the letters to the editor section, where a proponent of the DLM may have provided a different POV. In general the Washington Post is a newspaper of the highest standards so I can't see a good reason to remove this material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
This summary is a disgrace. The Washington Post didn't report that "a Maryland House of Delegates committee had singled out etc". The committee didn't "single out" anything. Testimony was given by a variety of people to the committee. I'm changing it.Momento (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I did not ask the material to be removed, did I? What I said that it is a cherry-picked quote, without context, and without presenting the facts that there was such a panel was never formed, does not explain who made these comments at the hearings, etc. Basically poor research. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm removed the appalling summary. This is a more accurate summary but hardly worthy of inclusion - A 1980 article in The Washington Post reported that a Maryland House of Delegates committee was urged to investigate religious cults in the state and told that "Guru Maharaj Ji's Divine Light Mission (amongst other groups) was a cult that employ manipulative techniques and turned children against their parents." Committee members Del. Robin Ficker (R-Montgomery) likened such a probe to "the Spanish Inquisition" and Del. Luiz Simmons, another Montgomery Republican, compared it to the McCarthy hearings in the early 1950s. [1]Momento (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Momento, please don't delete sourced material. I've copyedited toremove "singled out". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, what do you mean by "cherry-picked"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I meant that the necessary context was omitted for "effect". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
That appears to be a failure to assume good faith. How do you know what effect was intended by the original editor of that material? I don't see any particular context that's necessary to understand what the article said about the subject. There's nothing else in the article about the subject. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
And where does it say the committee "listed" DLM or referred to it as "controversial"Momento (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

<<< The panel referred in that source, is the Maryland's Task Force to Study the Effects of Cult Activities on Public Senior Higher Educational Institutions., about which it was written that Both the House and Senate hearings on the resolution were stacked with "experts" from the anti-cult movement. No civil liberties groups testified, nor did representatives of the mainline religions who generally oppose such measures, nor any representatives of the groups who would be directly affected by the action. All info is here: http://www.religiousfreedom.com/tskfrce/tfrcindex.htm no mention of DLM in any of the documents filled by the task force, or by the many people and organizations that challenged the constitutionality of the that "task force". Their full report is here].≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

How can this be? The article is from 1980, this stuff is from years later.Momento (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Legislature in the US is slow... :) If this is not the task force, then there was no panel formed, there is no records of such hearing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

<< The current wording is not factually accurate, misleading, and omits important context and viewpoints presented at that hearing. A 1980 article in The Washington Post reported that a Maryland House of Delegates committee listed, among other controversial groups: "Guru Maharaj Ji's Divine Light Mission ... as cults that employ manipulative techniques and turn children against their parents."[43]. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct Jossi, the WaPo doesn't say who "singled out at the hearing as cults that employ etc". It is a gross distortion to claim that it was the Committee that "singled out" or "listed" or in any way referred to DLM. But I've already explained that.Momento (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I've re-worded it for better accuracy:
  • A 1980 article in The Washington Post reported that, at a Maryland House of Delegates committee hearing, the Divine Light Mission was listed among cults that employ manipulative techniques and turn children against their parents.
If we still can't agree we could simply quote the material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Where does it say "listed"?Momento (talk) 05:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
When a number of things are written one after another it's called a "list". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Look guys, I am sure we can find a better source to indicate that by a number of people, especially concerned parents, DLM was seen as a "manipulative cult that turned children against their parents." (It was, and it's relevant to the Reception section.) But this source does not cut the mustard. I propose that rather than fighting over it, we should all try to come up with a better source that presents this POV. Jayen466 10:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe my English isn't good enough but where in the WaPo article does it say that "a number of things were written one after another"?Momento (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I've revised the summary of the source. However, I still think it lacks notability and focus for use in this article. Jayen466 12:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
You have done an accurate summary of the WaPo article which provides little meaningful material for this article.Momento (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Additional sources

This Knowledge was self-understanding, yielding calmness, peace, and contentment, since the innermost self is identical with the divine. Knowledge is attained through initiation, which provides four techniques that allow the practitioner to go within ... and emphasizing that the Knowledge is universal, non Indian, in nature.Chryssides, George D. (2001). Historical dictionary of new religious movements. Metuchen, N.J: Scarecrow Press, pp.210-1. ISBN 0-8108-4095-2. 

The meditation techniques the Maharaji teaches today are the same he learned from his father, Hans Ji Maharaj, who, in turn, learned them from his spiritual teacher [Sarupanand]. 'Knowledge', claims Maharaji, 'is a way to be able to take all your senses that have been going outside all your life, turn them around and put them inside to feel and to actually experience you ... What you are looking for is inside of you.Baumann, Martin (2002). Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO, p.428. ISBN 1-57607-223-1. 

Just as individuals vary with respect to their contacts with NRMs and outside foci, so also do NRMs vary in the degree to which they provide social rewards as part of a conversion "strategy" ( Long and Hadden, 1983). At one extreme is located Lofland and Skonovd's "revivalist" motif in which recruits are overwhelmed initially by waves of intense sentiment orchestrated by the movement -- "love bombed" in the case of the Unification Church (UC) ( Bromley and Shupe, 1979). Other programs of conversion are less extreme but also prescribe the establishment of interpersonal bonds prior to discussing movement precepts and practices (see, e.g., Stark and Bainbridge ( 1980b :1387) discussion of a Mormon conversion "manual"). At the other extreme are groups in which affective bonds are discouraged (e.g., Balch and Taylor, 1977; Johnson, 1976).
The Divine Light Mission appears to occupy the middle ground. Close, strong ties between newcomers and members develop gradually over the three to four month period between initial contact and the "knowledge" session that marks the transition to DLM membership. There is little evidence to suggest that social rewards are orchestrated by the movement either in degree or timing. Emergent friendships with members are an important forum in which recruits air doubts and discuss DLM beliefs. These relationships thus supplement a very cognitive conversion process in which active consideration of the movement's ideas and beliefs is encouraged from the outset.
4 Cognitive Outcomes
People seek and religious organizations provide explanations to very general questions of ultimate meaning as well as providing solutions to more prosaic problems ( Stark and Bainbridge, 1980a). Heirich ( 1977 :674) suggests that conversion entails a change of explanatory schemes of "root reality" similar to the gestalt shifts that accompany Kuhnian scientific revolutions. Experiences or encounters anomalous with a given reality play a key role in seeding doubts about its explanatory efficacy. Thus for Heirich links between the content of a new vision and adherents' prior experiences are crucial: "the new reality used by converts should speak directly to the problem they have encountered and should explain it more successfully than its earlier competitor" ( 1977 :675). C. David Gartrell, Zane K. Shannon, Contacts, Cognitions, and Conversion: a Rational Choice ApproachReview of Religious Research, Vol. 27, 1985

(preceding and following paragraph added by Jayen466 15:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC) )

The earlier review ( Richardson, 1985b) included psychological assessment studies of (a) a nationwide, communal, Jesus Movement organization ( Richardson, Stewart, & Simmonds, 1979; Simmonds, 1978; Simmonds, Richardson, & Harder, 1976); (b) an Eastern-oriented, California, "new age" group, Ananda Cooperative Village ( Nordquist, 1978; Rosen & Nordquist, 1980); (c) the Unification Church in the United States and Europe ( Galanter, 1980; Galanter, Rabkin, Rabkin, & Deutsch, 1979; Kuner, 1983); (d) the Children of God and Ananda Marga groups in Europe ( Kuner, 1983); (e) a fundamentalist campus group at an elite American college ( Nicholi, 1974); (f) the Divine Light Mission ( Galanter, 1978; Galanter & Buckley, 1978); and (g) other assessment research including several groups ( Ungerleider & Wellisch, 1979). The review also critiqued one report of a major "anticult" clinical psychologist who has served as a legitimator for groups opposed to new religions ( Singer, 1979), as well as discussing other relevant work by social scientists.

This earlier body of scholarship was impressive in coverage and consistency of findings. Noteworthy was the finding from studies of communally oriented groups that an unusual personality type was being fostered in or attracted to such groups. For instance, Nordquist and Rosen's ( Nordquist, 1978; Rosen & Nordquist, 1980) work on Ananda Cooperative Village showed a typical member to be comparatively high in social compassion and concerned about the environment and living a more simple, noncompetitive life. Their findings were summarized by saying, "Taken as a whole, these results do not suggest personality disorders or major psychopathologies. They reflect a different setting and lifestyle centered around values of selfrealization and even altruism" (Richardson, 1985b , pp. 213-214).

Research on the Jesus Movement group revealed a "dependency-prone" personality for many members, but one that participant observation demonstrated to be functional within the communal context of the group. Dramatic behavioral changes associated with participation (stopping use of drugs, alcohol, tobacco, and premarital sex) and the loving atmosphere within the group made us aware that the seemingly maladaptive pattern we found "fit" that particular context well and had positive value for participants ( Richardson et at., 1979).

Kuner ( 1983 ) application of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) to European members of the Unification Church, Ananda Marga, the Children of God, and a control group revealed overall group profiles within normal ranges, with few members' scores indicating poor mental health. He added that members had better scores than control group members and seemed to live with less worry and psychic stress, concluding that the new religions often serve as therapeutic groups for socially alienated youths.

Psychiatrist Marc Galanter's study of Unification Church members using a number of personality inventories revealed that "affiliation with the Unification Church apparently provided considerable and sustained relief from neurotic distress. Although the improvement was ubiquitous, a greater religious commitment was reported by those who indicated the most improvement" ( Galanter et al., 1979 , p. 168). His research on the Divine Light Mission led to similar conclusions: "The diversity of specific psychological symptoms alleviated here is notable. A decline was reported in symptoms affected by behavioral norms, such as drug taking and job trouble; it was also found in subjectively experienced symptoms, such as anxiety, not readily regulated" ( Galanter & Buckley, 1978 , p. 690). Galanter's provocative 1978 article propounded a biologically based relief effect, based on interaction of the human organism with features of the communal setting of the new religious groups. The article derived directly from the consistent finding across groups in Galanter's research of an ameliorative effect of participation for most members.

This earlier review of personality and psychiatric assessment of members of several new religions led me to conclude ( Richardson, 1985b) that:
The personality assessments of these group members reveal that life in the new religions is often therapeutic instead of harmful. Other information suggests that these young people are affirming their idealism by virtue of their involvement in such groups. Certainly there is some "submerging of personality" in groups which are communal or collective, simply because they do not foster the individualistic and competitive lifestyle to which we are accustomed, particularly in American society. However, there is little data to support the almost completely negative picture painted by a few (mental health professionals and others). (p. 221)- Richardson, James, T. Clinical and Personality Assessment of Participants in New Religions, p.147,International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, Vol. 5, 1995

Added full cite context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The Divine Light Mission was founded by the Hindu Shri Hans Maharaj Ji. Disciple of the guru Sarupanand Ji, Hans Maharaj Ji diffused the teachings of the Sant Mat tradition in Sind and Lahore, and in 1930 he established a mission in Delhi. Shortly after the declaration of Indian independence, he authorized the initiation and propagation activities of the first mahatmas, followers who committed their own lives to the teaching of Hans Maharaj's doctrine. Hans Maharaj founded the monthly magazine Hansadesh, and by 1960 the need to organize the numerous followers who could be found across Northern India led to the founding of the Divine Light Mission. Lewis, James, R. Odd Gods: New Religions and the Cult Controversy Lewis, James P. (2001). Odd Gods: New Religions and the Cult Controversy. Buffalo, N.Y: Prometheus Books, p.252. ISBN 1-57392-842-9. 

  • Furthermore, there are other shabd yoga related movements which have associatons with Radhasoami but have tried to distance themselves. Such groups include...the Divine Light Mission. p.245

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Will add some more, tomorrow. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Are these quotes all that the authors had to say on the subject, or are they "cherry-picked" (an accusation made on this page against another quotation)? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Why doesn't the material from Lewis include his description of the Millenia '73 festival as a "fiasco"? Why is there no mention of the DLM's internal problems that Lewis discusses? This single example that I've checked does not appear to be representative if the material in the book. I don't think it's helpful to post cherry-picked quotes here. Are we supposed to summarize this specially-selected material and put it in the article? That would not be appropriate or NPOV. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
What happened to good old WP:AGF, Will? These quotes are from material I gathered during the past few years. If there is more useful material in these books, by all means provide them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I provided material, and the decision on what to add, or not to add, and how and where to add to these to the article, is on the hands of these editors actively editing this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
First you accuse other editors of cherry picking quotes, then you take offense at the same charge. That doesn't appear consistent. It's clear that these quotes are not in context, and don't convey important information about the subject in the original material. You may not have described them as being fair or representative, but if they're not what's the point of posting them here? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Added the "Contacts, Cognitions, and Conversion: a Rational Choice Approach" quote. Excellent material on initial reception of new followers.Momento (talk) 05:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Momento, in other contexts you've been critical of what you've called ""conjectural interpretations of a source based on an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information". Can you please quote the entire text you used for your summary of the "Contacts, Cognitions, and Conversion: a Rational Choice Approach"? Or did you rely on the admittedly incomplete quotation provided by Jossi? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Momento, I don't find this addition successful either. First, the initial sentence is without context; the reader has no idea what "middle ground" is meant to signify here. Second, I think the passage appears in the wrong place – describing, as it does, an aspect of the movement's internal dynamics and entry path, it seems more related to Beliefs and Practices. Thirdly, the description should be written in the past tense, since the Divine Light Mission no longer exists in this form (appeared to occupy the middle ground ... developed gradually etc.). It might also be useful to include in the text the year this was written (1985). Jayen466 10:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
First of all, it can't be a ""conjectural interpretations of a source based on an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information", because it's a direct quote. It is what they said, not what I say they said. I have removed the "middle ground" sentence and put it in the past tense. And left it where it is because it does describe the reception experience and doesn't describe "Beliefs or Practices".Momento (talk) 11:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's a fun bit from - New Religious Movements: Challenge and Response by Bryan Wilson - Some NRM's, somewhat naively, believed in the earlier years that they could use the media to spread their message to the rest of the nation, only to find that the media's construction of their message was a complete travesty. For example, Elan Vital (formerly known as Divine Light Mission) publicised the advent of the child guru Maharaj Ji in the early 1970s, only to find that he was portrayed as "baptising crowds by water cannon".(The multi-colored water with which the crowds were sprayed on a few occasions was in fact no more than an exuberant act, and had no sacramental significance whatever).Momento (talk) 05:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Those were annual events held in April and are called Holi festivals. The festivals did have a huge significance for Rawat's North American followers who attended the three-day festivals in Miami Beach, Florida. In the 1970s through at least 1980, for example, DLM leased the Orange Bowl stadium in Miami Beach for the Holi events on the Saturday afternoon of the weekend festival. These events have been held at least well into the late 1990s Holi. It's true that Rawat wasn't "baptising" crowds in the Christian sense, but there has been a significance of Rawat's Holi Fesitivals for followers being blessed by Prem Rawat who sprayed them with his "Holi water cannon," and certainly the significance has been there in the sense that it represents Hindu mythology. Hope this helps to explain Holi.
Also, Elan Vital wasn't a new term to Divine Light Mission in 1983. In the mid to late 1970s the glossy DLM (U.S.) publication And It Is Divine (AIID) changed its name to Elan Vital ("the vital force of life," or "life force") long before DLM changed its name to Elan Vital in the U.S. in 1983. I realize I'm not providing sources, but hope this bit of background helps to explain the DLM/EV sponsored Holi events and the DLM name change. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


<<< I will transcribe the full quote from "Contacts, Cognitions, and Conversion: a Rational Choice Approach", so that editors can incorporate context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It's in Questia, so if you want to save yourself the transcription effort, I could Ctrl-C the relevant passages out. Jayen466 15:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
C. David Gartrell, Zane K. Shannon; Contacts, Cognitions, and Conversion: a Rational Choice Approach, Review of Religious Research, Vol. 27, 1985

Just as individuals vary with respect to their contacts with NRMs and outside foci, so also do NRMs vary in the degree to which they provide social rewards as part of a conversion "strategy" ( Long and Hadden, 1983). At one extreme is located Lofland and Skonovd's "revivalist" motif in which recruits are overwhelmed initially by waves of intense sentiment orchestrated by the movement -- "love bombed" in the case of the Unification Church (UC) (Bromley and Shupe, 1979). Other programs of conversion are less extreme but also prescribe the establishment of interpersonal bonds prior to discussing movement precepts and practices (see, e.g., Stark and Bainbridge ( 1980b :1387) discussion of a Mormon conversion "manual"). At the other extreme are groups in which affective bonds are discouraged (e.g., Balch and Taylor, 1977; Johnson, 1976).
The Divine Light Mission appears to occupy the middle ground. Close, strong ties between newcomers and members develop gradually over the three to four month period between initial contact and the "knowledge" session that marks the transition to DLM membership. There is little evidence to suggest that social rewards are orchestrated by the movement either in degree or timing. Emergent friendships with members are an important forum in which recruits air doubts and discuss DLM beliefs. These relationships thus supplement a very cognitive conversion process in which active consideration of the movement's ideas and beliefs is encouraged from the outset. p.35

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah well, I was just getting there. Also inserted above, plus following para. Jayen466 15:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Reception

I've done a copyedit of the Reception section, because it seemed to have become rather disorganised. I have regrouped and summarised some of the material, though the sources should still be the same. Please cast your eagle eyes over it. I also think Singer should better go in the reception section. Is there something a little more substantial that she has said specifically about DLM? Mentions in passing are not really that notable for this article IMO. Jayen466 00:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Good start, but it still misses many other scholar's opinions. I am also unhappy about the "panel" that was never formed, the "hearings" that are not described, and the lack of context provided about that source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
The mention of DLM in the WP article seems fairly tangential to me, the main group discussed being that of Rev. Moon; if in addition the panel was never formed, then I would be happy to drop the passage. Jayen466 00:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see that the failure to form a panel is a sufficient reason to delete the WaPo material, nor is the fact that the article isn't focused on the DLM. It's verifiable and relevant to the perception of the group. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe some observers noted that a number of premies came off drugs through their involvement with DLM; IIRC, Galanter's book "Cults – Faith, Healing and Coercion" mentions the case of a heroin addict. The book is available on http://www.questia.com, if any of you feels like having a stab; something along these lines might be worth including as well. Jayen466 00:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Re Geaves: when he says "students," does he mean university/college students or students of Rawat? If the former, we should say so; if the latter, perhaps "people" will do. Jayen466 01:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The latter. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The section will benefit from opinions about the DLM from George D. Chryssides, Hunt, Brian Wilsom, Tim Miller, , Raymond Lee, Rosemary Goring, James Lewis, and many others that wrote about the DLM. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've moved Singer to the Reception section, but I think there are now too many gratuitous mentions of the word "cult" there (gratuitous in the sense that we only mention that someone used the word "cult" about DLM, without giving any relevant background). Jayen466 14:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Are there any objections to removing
  • the two Singer passages,
  • the mention of the Time magazine article
  • the Maryland passage?
In my opinion, the Singer and Time Magazine passages don't say anything except that the movement was often called a cult, which we already have a far better, and explicit, reference for in Levine. The Maryland passage is useful for what it says ("turning children against their parents"), but the article it is cited to is not ideal, since neither the Maryland committee nor this particular hearing were particularly notable.
Lastly, we are missing page references for Kaslow and Bromley (refs 41 and 42) – could the editor who inserted these passages please add them? There is much potentially useful material in Kaslow, but I was unable to find this particular passage. Note that the point about financial exploitation in the passage sourced to Kaslow is another duplicate, since it is covered in exactly the same words, but more explicit detail, below by Levine. The book edited by Kaslow also mentions (p. 58) that the word cult has no precise consensual meaning; hence it is somewhat questionable what "cult-like" behaviour is meant to signify in our text. The one example given in Kaslow (i.e. violent behaviour often leading to groups being called cults) does not seem to fit with DLM. Jayen466 23:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
No objections for removal of these, per your arguments.
As for Bromley, there is nothing to support that text in that source. Page 113 reads: The new religions in the medium tension category (for example the Divine Light Mission and the followers of Yoigi Bhajan and Muktananda) have been defined by the public as more peculiar than threatening. Although viewed by the public as religious in nature, such groups have generally been ostracized by their unconventional beliefs. These new religions have been granted only limited access to legitimate means to spread their influence and mobilize resources. As both Stark and Bryan Wilson suggest, these religious movements appear to be in a position of optimal tension with society—neither inviting suppression nor risking secularization.
Also page 227, It is ironic that, as the ACM [Anti-Cult Movement] began its period of aggressive expansion during the mid-1970s, many of the highly visible groups it opposed had either leveled off in growth or even entered a state of decline. This is true not only for the more radical millennial groups such as the CHildren of God, which divorce itself from the more conventional Jesus Movement, but also for visible groups such as the Unification Church, the Hare Krishnas, and the Divine Light Mission (see Bromley and Shupe 1981:26-46; and Pilarzky, 1978). Such developments in these religious groups occurred partly for internal reasons but also in part because the news media's discrditing reports about their activities. The media disseminated in uncritical fashion ACM claims and apostate accounts to create a widespread public acceptance of "mind-control", and "cult" stereotypes. Although toward the end of the ACM;s first decade of operation,m there could be seen a gradual trend toward "balance coverage" (as anticultism alone ceased to be newsworthy), the news media were still dominated by negative images of many religious groups.
Some of this can be added if suitable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd object to removing Singer, Times and Wapo outright. The multiple sources make it clear that the labelling of the DLM as a "cult" was not unusual. However we don't need to list each individually. It would be sufficient to say something like "The group has been called a cult a number of times" and then use the citations as sources for that assertion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
This is not an article written by the ACM, and there is no use in calling something to be a "cult" without providing context for that: Doing what you propose is not encyclopedic, and useless information. See Cult for some information about the multiple uses of that term. Which use of the term will you be stating? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you want context then the best thing would be to leave the sourced material as it is. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
That is not context. That is misleading summarization to push a certain point. See also the full sources provided for the first statement. Whoever added that material should be taken to account. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, it would seem acceptable to say that "The DLM was often referred to as a cult"; whether that was good or not, it is history and part of how DLM was received by the wider society. However, Levine already says that, and we don't need to say it twice. Here is a compromise proposal:
The DLM was often referred to as a cult.-ref- (collection of links to the existing sources) -/ref- The psychiatrist Saul V. Levine, author of several articles on new religious movements, wrote in a paper entitled Life in Cults, published in 1989, that the DLM, the Hare Krishna movement, the Unification Church and the Children of God were widely held in low esteem, with parents feeling that ... Jayen466 00:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd accept that compromise. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, then let's go for that. Incidentally, most of Levine's article is visible in google books, here (pp. 95–106); more material could be added from it. Jayen466 01:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Not so fast, Jaen. It all depends on what else is added. In particular material that presents the specific cultural aspects of the decade 1970-1980. Otherwise it is deficient in the NPOV department, and misses that context. It also misses the fact that what the media and the ACM calls a "cult" and what scholars call a "cult" (i,e a novel religious movement) is very different. Can you try, Jaen, adding some material from the sources I provided? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, the DLM has been called a cult by both scholars and the popular media, in both '70s and later. We can expand Jaen's proposed text to cver all of that, since that's more accurate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I will have a look tomorrow, it is getting late here; but I think the section looks better than it did an hour ago. Another thing: I am not sure I haven't put words in Levine's mouth. Did he specifically note that the DLM had abandoned some of the anachronistic Hindu notions his analysis was based on, or did one of us note this? If it was one of us, it needs to be reworded; I couldn't find the reference in his text just now. Jayen466 01:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Good night, Jaen. Hope you can take a look at my comments at the bottom tomorrow regarding your reorganization. @Wil I don't dispute that, but as written it lacks context of what and who and when, and it lacks other information from sources I provided. What is the point for me to provide sources if these are ignored? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
You've been posting lots of excerpts from sources in the last days. Which ones are you referring to now? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I like Jayen466's compromise, and don't see any problems from what Jossi describes. Msalt (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

<<Ditto for Kaslow. Page 10. Also drawn from the Indian guru tradition is the Divine Light Mission led by the youthful Guru Maharaj Ji. Characterized by its leaders as a philosophy rather than a religion, many of the practices are drawn from Hinduism. These include celibacy, a vegetarian diet, and abstention from tobacco, alcohol, and drugs (Downton, 1979). The guru does not claim to be God, but claims that trough his teachings his followers ("Premies") meditation and discipline, he can put them in touch with the God that has been with them all along (Stoner and Parke, 1977; Enroth, 1977). His advertisements promise "peace" to those who give him love.

Page 41, section "A typology of family responses to a New Religious Movement is where it gets to this point, albeit in a very different manner as in the article text: Among the reasons for the intensity of feelings widely elicietd by new religious movements, in the West is that their recruits are predominantly young people whom parents and other close relatives still feel a strong sense of responsibility. The modal age of such movements such as the Unification Church, the Family of Love, the Divine Light Mission or the ISKON is probably mid-twenties. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Manav Dharam

I have tried to find out what Dharam means. Does anyone here know? Rumiton (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

'Manav Dharam: "the dharam of mankind". Dharam comes from Dharma, or "underlying order in nature and life". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
It's a variant of "dharma". See [5]. Jayen466 15:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you both. Should it/can it be translated in the text? Rumiton (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I suppose it could. "The Religion of Man"? "The Religion of Mankind"? Jayen466 16:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Beliefs and Practices Section

I removed this text.

"Rawat's perspectives delivered during his satsang talks brought great pleasure and meaning 
to many listeners. The practice of satsang, service and meditation also resulted for many in 
an inner calm and contentment which guided their behavior."

I assume that I don't need to explain why. If you're really baffled, my edit summary spells it out. Msalt (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any sourcing for the statement that "No rules or regulations were imposed, and no beliefs or ethical practices were taught." (in the early DLM), and in fact this is a point of controversy. The very next section, on ashrams, notes the celibacy, vegetarianism, and frequent meditation, not to mention the avoidance of alcohol and drugs. These were by most accounts very important elements of the early DLM, and we have many reliable sources. I think we need to remove or, at least, drastically rephrase this. It's also important that we are clear about which phase of the DLM/EV we're talking about. Msalt (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The second paragraph in this section isn't sourced. The third paragraph in the section is not enclosed in quotes and the majority of text should be in quotes because it's a verbatim quote of the source, Meredith McGuire (not Thomas Pilarzyk, who is appears to be McGuire's source). Otherwise, that's plagarism.
The early years of the Divine Light Mission in the United States were characterized by rapidly growing, loosely affiliated local ashrams, united mainly by devotion to the charismatic figure of Guru Maharaj Ji. As the DLM became increasingly structured and centralized, leadership and power focused in the Denver headquarters. According to scholars, Prem Rawat's desire to consolidate his power and authority over the movement in the United States resulted in greater formalization: rules and regulation for ashram living, standards for recruited "candidates," and pressure toward certifying the movement's teachers.[28]
Sylviecyn (talk) 11:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Well spotted. I have paraphrased the 3rd para. As for the second, anyone aware which sources this should be cited to? Jayen466 16:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is that still there?

The Divine Light Mission, alongside other movements, was perceived by many outsiders, particularly parents, as engaging in financial exploitation.[41][42]

I provided the sources that purportedly support that text, which demonstrate that that sentence has nothing to do with the sources. Why is that still there? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Kaslow [41]
Page 10. Also drawn from the Indian guru tradition is the Divine Light Mission led by the youthful Guru Maharaj Ji. Characterized by its leaders as a philosophy rather than a religion, many of the practices are drawn from Hinduism. These include celibacy, a vegetarian diet, and abstention from tobacco, alcohol, and drugs (Downton, 1979). The guru does not claim to be God, but claims that trough his teachings his followers ("Premies") meditation and discipline, he can put them in touch with the God that has been with them all along (Stoner and Parke, 1977; Enroth, 1977). His advertisements promise "peace" to those who give him love.
Page 41, section A typology of family responses to a New Religious Movement is where it gets to this point, albeit in a very different manner as in the article text: Among the reasons for the intensity of feelings widely elicietd by new religious movements, in the West is that their recruits are predominantly young people whom parents and other close relatives still feel a strong sense of responsibility. The modal age of such movements such as the Unification Church, the Family of Love, the Divine Light Mission or the ISKON is probably mid-twenties.


Bromley [42]
Page 113 reads: The new religions in the medium tension category (for example the Divine Light Mission and the followers of Yoigi Bhajan and Muktananda) have been defined by the public as more peculiar than threatening. Although viewed by the public as religious in nature, such groups have generally been ostracized by their unconventional beliefs. These new religions have been granted only limited access to legitimate means to spread their influence and mobilize resources. As both Stark and Bryan Wilson suggest, these religious movements appear to be in a position of optimal tension with society—neither inviting suppression nor risking secularization.
Also page 227, It is ironic that, as the ACM [Anti-Cult Movement] began its period of aggressive expansion during the mid-1970s, many of the highly visible groups it opposed had either leveled off in growth or even entered a state of decline. This is true not only for the more radical millennial groups such as the CHildren of God, which divorce itself from the more conventional Jesus Movement, but also for visible groups such as the Unification Church, the Hare Krishnas, and the Divine Light Mission (see Bromley and Shupe 1981:26-46; and Pilarzky, 1978). Such developments in these religious groups occurred partly for internal reasons but also in part because the news media's discrditing reports about their activities. The media disseminated in uncritical fashion ACM claims and apostate accounts to create a widespread public acceptance of "mind-control", and "cult" stereotypes. Although toward the end of the ACM;s first decade of operation,m there could be seen a gradual trend toward "balance coverage" (as anticultism alone ceased to be newsworthy), the news media were still dominated by negative images of many religious groups.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The edit summary about the reordering says most notable and widely-known first. I don't think so. Barret and Downton are more cited than Levine, and so are others. See the sources I provided in this very page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(Still up with blooming work ...) Well, I don't see any reference there to financial exploitation. Page number, anyone? If not, it has to go. The point is still made by Levine, and he did mention it. (Though he also closed his account by sparing a fond thought for religious freedom and the possibility that one might even learn from the best and most successful aspects of NRMs.) Jayen466 02:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The "most notable and widely known" really referred to the almost ubiquitous description as a cult by the media (and also some scholars), rather than to Levine. I'm happy to discuss this further. Jayen466 02:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't use the media as a guide. DLM is more accurately described as a NRM (new religious movement) and all scholars agree Rawat comes from several hundred year old Sant tradition. But what newspaper is going to bother spelling that out when they can call DLM or EV a cult, which is short, sharp and eye catching.Momento (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
What's our source for the DLM being known more as a NRM than as a cult? It's not just the media that uses the term; it's been used in numerous scholarly sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
See Cult#Definitions. Given the very obvious pejorative use of the term, which one do you think is being slapped into this article? The one used by scholars such a Richardson, and Melton? Thne one use by the ACM? Please do not avoid the subject by saying "it is called a cult, so we do here". It is not for nothing that List of groups referred to as cults has had a POV tags for years. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying that we can't mention the fact that this group is called a cult by numerous mainstream media and scholarly sources? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it is common enough that DLM was called a cult and it should be mentioned but it was largely by the media not by scholars. A quick look at the scholars' page show that none refer to DLM as a "cult" -

Hunt ="Hindu-inspired movement" followed by "movement". Geaves ="New Religious Movement" followed by "movement" Lewis=?, Chryssides ="New Religious Movements," Barrett = " the movement ", Downton = DLM, Mission , All God's Children - 1977 = "group" Schnabel 1982 = the movement Geaves = "movement", Melton - Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America = DLM, Frans Derks and Jan M. van der Lans = the movement, Premies Versus Sannyasins by Jan van der Lans and Dr. Frans Derks 1986 = movement, Guru Maharaj Ji and the Divine Light Mission by Jeanne Messer 1976 = movement, Jeanne Messer= movement, Kent From Slogans To Mantras = movement, Foss & Larkin = Mission & movement, Galanter = sect. I don't think one uses the word "cult" in describing DLM which isn't surprising considering its negative connotations. So I think basing the chronology of the reception on the fact that the media use the word "cult" is giving that aspect too much importance. What is important is how DLM was seen by its adherents, then scholars and then the media.Momento (talk) 06:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we can use excerpts hand pickd by WP editors as a guide to the frequency with which controversial terms are used. By comparison Google Scholar gets 64 hits for ["Divine Light Mission" "new religious movement" OR NRM][6] while it gets 466 hits for ["Divine Light Mission" cult][7] That's a more objective survey of scholarly usage. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
True, the scholars group is limited. Just searched books with Divine Light Mission + cult and got 466. Divine Light Mission without cult = 635. Google search Divine Light Mission + cult and got 6510 and Divine Light Mission without cult = 14,200. It should be in but it's a matter of priority.Momento (talk) 07:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
So according to your results the word "cult" appears in 466 out of 635 scholarly pieces that mention the DLM. That's 73%. Yes, it's a matter of priority - high priority. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Did you read the sources returned from your search ["Divine Light Mission" cult][8]? At least the first six I looked at did not refer to Divine Light Mission as a cult but the word cult was included in the book. That doesn't mean they are referring to Divine Light Mission as a cult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.16.134.154 (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Google is not an empirical measure that is useful for asserting the validity of these arguments from either side. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Anyway I think it's clear the DLM has been referred to as a Hindu inspired movement, New Religious Movement, a movement, an organisatiion, a sect and a cult. So that should be the description in the first sentence of the reception section. Calling it only a cult in undue weight. I'll leave to Jayen466, the word smith, to have a go at making it right.Momento (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Calling it only a "spiritual organization", as we do now, may be undue weight too. I assume that Momento can find multiple sources for each of the labels he lists to equal the number of sources that call the group a "cult". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that Momento is arguing is that we need to have text that describe all ways in which the DLM was described, not only one. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
WillBeBack, as 68.16.134.154 pointed out, your assumption that a book that contains the words "Divine Light Mission" and "cults" equals a claim the the "Divine Light Mission" is described as a "cult" is simplistic in the extreme. Example, the first book says "Of all new religions active in Israel in the early 1980s, including Scientology, ISKCON, Divine Light Mission, Ananda Marga, and Transcendental ...Press attention to TM was positive or neutral, and the first press campaign against new religions in the spring of 1974 singled out the Divine Light Mission ..I'm changing the first sentence to more accurately represent what sources we have.Momento (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Momento, I never made that assertion. You've misread my statement. As for the new material, the placement of "Hindu inspired movement" first and "cult" last implies an ordering of terms. I doubt it's been called a "Hindu inspired movement" very often, while it has been called a cult frequently. Elsewhere another editor has suggested that summaries of scholarly comments be given weight according to those that "are most cited on the subject". Unless multiple sources use the term "Hindu inspired movement" often it should be moved to the end and more frequently-used terms moved up. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, could you please add the page numbers to your citations? Thanks. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not impressed with the whole concept of what DLM was called. It was only added so that the word "cult" could be used. Are we going to do one for Rawat, who was called - chubby, fat, young, teenager, Indian, guru etc. It says less about DLM than about the authors. Scholars are more accurate calling it a NRM, Christians and tabloids would call it a cult.Momento (talk) 04:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
We're not here to impress you. I'm sorry if you don't like what the sources say. Plenty of scholars also call the group a sect or cult. Perhaps you don't like them either. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Please don't get personal. I'm not complaining about what sources claim, as you can see I'm adding sources. My concern, as usual, is editors adding only one source of many and therefore promoting only one POV. In this case, using only one source to claim DLM "was often referred to as a cult" when the sources I have provided show it was also referred to as a Hindu inspired religion, a new religion, a new religious movement, an organization and a sect. My point was, now that the complete story is out, all it shows is that different people had different names for it. Hardly surprising and not notable or interesting.Momento (talk) 06:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I was responding to your personal comment about being unimpressed. Anyway, how many sources refer to the DLM as a "Hindu inspired movement"? I'm sure I can find a dozen or two that call it a "cult". Perhaps your comment about "editors adding only one source of many and therefore promoting only one POV" is a reflection on your own editing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
No more personal attacks thanks.Momento (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
There haven't been any from me. So how many sources are there for "Hindu inspired movement"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
In less than a minute -
Excerpted from Cults: Faith Healing and Coercion, by Marc Galanter M.D. Oxford University Press 1989 Pages 7 -9 .These traits of charismatic groups are often best illustrated by the way they bring about changes in the thinking and behaviors of individual members in single episodes. One example comes from my own research experience with the Divine Light Mission, a Hindu-oriented new religious movement.
Numerous gurus came from India to America with a westernized form of some aspect of Hindu teaching, groups that included yellow-robed Hare Krishnas, transcendental meditation (TM), and the Divine Light Mission. Religion News Lwetter
The German Indologist Axel Michaels in his 1998 book about Hinduism distinguished founding, proselytizing religions, "guru-ism" as religious groups originating in India, but also widespread in the West, founded by charismatic persons with a corpus of esoteric writings of gurus predominantly in English: Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and Transcendental Meditation, Sathya Sai Baba and the Sathya Sai Federation, Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and ISKCON, Guru Maharaj Ji and the Divine Light Mission.
Stephen J. Hunt Alternative Religions: A Sociological Introduction (2003), pp.116-7, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 0-7546-3410-8
The leader of the Divine Light Mission, the Guru Maharaji, was 13 years old when he spectacularly rose to fame in the early 1970's. It was his young age which made him different from other eastern gurus who had established similar Hindu-inspired movements at the time. Momento (talk) 07:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. While only one uses the exact formulation that's close enough. We should add those to the article as citations. I'm glad that we're getting this material added to the article after many years of editing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
You can add them if you like. Just search "Divine Light Mission" + "hindu" and you'll find a few dozen. I'd rather go for quality than quantity.Momento (talk) 10:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little concerned that we're losing a nuance here. The reception section is talking about how the the movement was understood, particularly in the early 1970s. It was clearly seen as a sort of exotic Hindu import by many Americans anyway at that time (not so sure about Britain or the continent), and by all accounts the DLM itself had many Hindu elements, which of course were removed starting in the mid-1970s but mostly in the early 1980s. Both the popular perception and the reality in the early 1970s had much to do with Hinduism. But quoting books from 1998 that analyze the Hindu roots of the DLM from a scholarly perspective is different than documenting the popular perception of the group in 1971, and I think the difference is being blurred here.
I also think there is a POV reason for that blurring, evident in Momento's recent edit where he changed "seen as a cult" to variously described as (long, repetitive list of descriptions, one of which is cult.) It is an attempt to minimize the widespread perception (in the early 1970s) of DLM as a cult.
Our sources are very clear. From 1971 to 1983, the DLM had a strong "brand" if you will as a Hindu-based, charismatic movement advocating sobriety, vegetarianism and celibacy with ashrams at the center ideologically if not numerically, and this led to a popular and press backlash including many allegations of being a cult. DLM was at the time typically mentioned in the same breath as the Hare Krishna, Scientology, etc. Later Rawat steered the movement to a more Western, less immersive course that defused this popular antagonism, to the point where Elan Vital is never grouped with alleged cults any more (outside of ex-premie.org). To be NPOV, the article needs to show both sides of this transition. Ex-members understandably want to focus on the earlier controversy, and current members understandably want to focus on the milder present, but the article needs to show both. Msalt (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I am working on a draft as suggested, and it will include all viewpoints presented, without asserting one over the other. I will have the draft ready hopefully by the weekend. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not an "attempt to minimize the widespread perception (in the early 1970s) of DLM as a cult" is an attempt to include the numerous sources that say the DLM was an Indian movement, based on the Hindu religion with millions of followers led by a Guru with a traceable lineage of 100 years. Something that was widely known, discussed and accepted in the early 70s. Have a look at the newspaper reports of Rawat arriving in the west, no mention of cult there. Cult was introduced by other religions and some sensational media. This isn't a tabloid, it's an encyclopedia, and we are supposed to summarize all sources, not just the LA Times and the Rocky Mountain Gazette.Momento (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Msalt, in part there is also a historical developmental process here that has occurred over the past twenty years or so. You mention Scientology; while Scientology remains controversial, these days the U.S. State Department, for example, regularly criticises the German government, which takes a pretty tough stance vis-a-vis Scientology, for infringing German Scientologists' religious freedom, with the U.S. State Department referring to Scientology as a "religious minority". Likewise, it was a matter of concern to the State Department that Germany did not allow Rev. Moon, the founder of the Unification Church, into the country. I think it would have been unthinkable for the U.S. government to express these sorts of views 20 or 30 years ago, or for the German Federal Constitutional Court to reject the Federal Interior Ministry's rationale for its 1995 immigration exclusion and the failure to issue a visa, which was based on the Government's characterization of Reverend Moon and his wife as leaders of a "cult" that endangered the personal and social development of young persons. There has, it seems to me, been some kind of sea change in opinion, which is affecting the stance that the courts and governments of many Western countries are taking on these issues. [9] Jayen466 17:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Split in leadership

... could do with some work as well. There are many sources that describe the evolution of the movement and we should use them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Founding and early years in India

This section can also be expanded. I will provide some additional sources for editors' evaluation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Archiving ok?

If there is no objection, I'd like to archive this page again, there's a lot of old discussion on here. If someone else wants to do it, that's ok too. I plan on doing this either late tonight, or early tomorrow, again, unless there's any objections. -- Maelefique (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Missing sources

Reception section

The reception section still lacks many sources and viewpoints, and suffers from selective omission from sources used, and over emphasis of some sources over others It needs:

  1. Text from Bromley to provide a proper framing related to public/media perception in the 70s-80s
  2. Text from Kaslow, about parents fears
  3. Reducing the text from Levine, who is not a scholar, but a mental helath professional and is not widely cited as others are. As it stands too much weight is given to that source.
  4. Text from Chryssides
  5. Text from Bauman
  6. Text from Gartell and Shannon, about DLM membership and conversion
  7. Text from Richardson, about "anticult" clinical psychologists legitimation of groups opposed to new religions, and his conclusions about the lack of data to support the negative picture painted by mental health professionals. This will provide some NPOV balance to Levine's opinions
  8. Removing the Maryland hearing text, or re-adding other viewpoints presented at that hearing, that were removed by Will Beback on his last revert
  9. Text from Hunt
  10. Reordering the text in the reception section, giving weight to the scholars that are most cited on the subject

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to create a draft of the Reception section and place it here for discussion? You seem to have a clear idea of where you want to go with this, and know your way around the sources. The one thing I can say is that ultimately, it would be nice to arrive at a coherent and fluid narrative, rather than a succession of individual scholars' views. If not, I might have a go later, if no one else is up for it. Jayen466 16:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it needs a coherent narrative, and in fact, that is what I am proposing. I think you can give it a try, rather than me doing it, as you have a knack for good copyedting, and your prose much better than mine. I will give you feedback, don't worry about it :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
A sandbox draft sounds like a good idea. Msalt (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I could try and give it a go, but would prefer that Jaen takes the lead on this if he is interested in doing so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, I think it is better if you try at the moment. I have work deadlines up to my ears (and beyond), and some of the sources (e.g. Chryssides and Bauman) I haven't read nor know which parts of them you specifically have in mind; getting my head round them would take hours I don't have at the moment. Sorry. Jayen466 23:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
OK. I will try, but you need to promise that you will convert it to brilliant prose :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Can we get a more accurate cite on Downton's paragraph in the Reception, as per WP:CITE#FULL I think we need to add page numbers to that. -- Maelefique (talk) 07:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, go ahead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Better, check the Talk:Divine Light Mission/Reception draft, that already includes full cites where applicable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 08:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't have the Downton book, I'm taking it from the internet which doesn't have an accurate page. But the cite was for Downton calling DLM the "movement" as in "Attracting young, white, middle-class youth, the movement expanded rapidly from 1971 to the close of 1973, at which time the Mission's leadership estimated American membership to be about 50,000", which appears throughout the book but first in the fifth paragraph after the introduction. Perhaps someone else can provide the page number.Momento (talk) 11:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"International expansion"

This material was just deleted from Divine Light Mission#International expansion for lack of a source:

  • Under Prem Rawat, the movement expanded rapidly. In 1971, Rawat, then known as Guru Maharaji Ji, travelled to the West. DLMs were established in the US and the UK. In the US, the DLM was registered as a non-profit corporation, and in 1974 it was recognized as a church by the United States Internal Revenue Service under section 501(c)(3).

I restored it and added a cite request. This material appears non-contentious and is important to the narrative of history in the article. I believe that most of it is readily sourceable. I suggest that we retain this material and find cite it from existing sourcs as needed. Perhaps the source request can be made more specific? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Added two sources to support the summary.Momento (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. It would have been a pity to lose that part of the narrative. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Downton in the Reception

Can whoever added those quotes supply the correct citation please, as per WP:CITE#FULL? -- Maelefique (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ashrams

Here is some materials on the ashrams. I would suggest adding summaries of these to what is already there, under a new section heading "Ashrams". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Messer

All Mission activities depend entirely on volunteered labor and funds. The knowledge itself, the primary source of satisfaction to devotees, is independent of the Mission proper, and DLM has no power to discipline or enforce agreements. Devotees move in and out of service roles or financial commitments, and DLM has little chance to predict or control income or staffing. [2]

Galanter

Initial Encounters (Pages 22 - 28) My first encounter with the Divine Light Mission came when Beth invited me to visit an ashram at the time the group was expanding. She thought the sect would be interesting for a psychiatrist to observe because some members had experienced a relief from serious emotional problems when they joined. She felt her group had tapped a large area of mental function psychiatry was unaware of. The atmosphere in the ashram was indeed quite striking. On entering a large apartment on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, I was greeted in a friendly, even intimate fashion by people who were complete strangers. The intense communality of the members was immediately apparent, a quality that 'as clearly an important aspect of the group's function. One could sense a closeness among those present, and an absence of the minor tensions that would be expected in a setting where two dozen people were living in tight quarters. A college dormitory, a military barracks, or a summer camp soon weal a certain amount of hostile banter or argument. These appeared to be absent in the ashram. Caring and intimacy, reflective of the group's cohesiveness, seemed to mute any expression of animosity. There were kind words, offers of food, expressions of interest, and warm smiles, all from people I'd never met before. Any question was soon answered, sometimes even anticipated. Having been invited by one of their members and defined temporarily as one of their own, I was made to feel as if I were entering a supportive envelope, to be protected from the rough edges of relationships in the outside world".

Premies could live in ashrams to devote themselves more full to Service. Premies often worked part or full time outside the ashram and gave a sizable portion-sometimes all-of their income to the movement. They also practiced celibacy, vegetarianism, and frequent meditation. The focus of this ascetic existence was their religious mission rather than personal pleasure or gain. [3]
Geaves

Many of the characteristics of the Indian movement founded by Prem Rawat’s father, who had died only in 1966, were imported wholesale into the western environment. Ashrams were established with a lifetime commitment of celibacy expected from those who joined. Members were expected to forswear drugs and alcohol, and adopt a strict vegetarian diet. [...] The closing of the ashrams took away the possibility of a committed workforce and instead Prem Rawat’s activities to promote his teachings became more dependent on part-time volunteer assistance from individuals who were now raising families and creating careers for themselves. [4]

Melton

Many were initiated and became the core of the Mission in the United States. Headquarters were established in Denver, and by the end of 1973, tens of thousands had been initiated, and several hundred centers as well as over twenty ashrams, which housed approximately 500 of the most dedicated premies, had emerged. [5]

Parke & Stoner
Some of the communal houses where premies live have been closed, but five of the largest and most successful remain open. Many of today's young premies are scattered about cities in communal apartments, rather than together in one large communal house. However, their physical dispersion seems in no way to have altered their communal dedication to the Mission. But a whirlpool of controversy swirls around the system of ashrams (the communal houses where devotees live together).
In the beginning the group looked for followers who wanted to devote all of their time to Mission work and their newfound meditative techniques. Complaints began, charging that the group was a religious cult out to capture the minds and spirits of unaware young men and women who had wanted only to expand their minds and improve their psyches, but instead fell into a full-time premie trap.
Enthralled by the guru's meditative techniques, young people by the score succumbed to the entreaties of newfound Mission friends to move into an ashram and devote their lives to Mission work. Once inside an ashram, they often became as fanatical and as single-minded as members of the most extreme religious cults. It wasn't long before the Guru Maharaj Ji's Divine Light Mission was being called a pernicious religious cult on the order of the Unification Church, Love Israel's Church of Armageddon, the Krishna Consciousness Movement, and others around the country that persuade converts to give up everything for lives of sacrifice and concentration on new group goals.
To get the most out of being a premie, a follower is encouraged to practice vegetarianism and celibacy as well as abstention from the use of alcohol, tobacco, and drugs. Premies will say that nothing is forbidden in Divine Light, but they will also emphasize that each follower ought to give his first allegiance to the Mission. Consequently fervent believers form new friendships with fellow believers, eventually cutting ties with disapproving friends outside of Divine Light and ultimately breaking with their families who do not condone or endorse their new lifestyles. A college student who sets up an altar to Guru Maharaj Ji in his dormitory room and sits quietly meditating may be the subject of derision and scorn. He can be no more comfortable with his practices while living at home with parents who are obviously antagonistic toward his new beliefs. The final step in disassociation with the outside world often comes when a premie leaves his home and friends to move into the communal living structure provided by the Mission. Here, with other likeminded premies, he can practice "knowledge" fulltime and devote his life to the service of his guru and the Mission.
While the ashrams have often been self-supporting they have not been a good source of income for the Mission. Unlike the Moonies, the Children of God, or the Hare Krishnas, Divine Light Mission members do not sell anything. They do not solicit on street corners, selling candy, flowers, peanuts, or literature. And unlike the Church of Scientology, Guru Maharaj Ji's group does not charge for the courses or the teaching of the techniques of "knowledge." The group gets its money through gifts and the tithing of its members. The more gainfully employed a premie is, the higher the tithe the Mission receives.[6]
The Divine Light Mission knows that to close all the ashrams, which are not only communal residences but also serve communities as a central meeting place where premies can come for nightly satsang, would seriously disrupt the group's cohesion. Instead, today's premies, whether they live in ashrams, communal apartments, or in their own homes, are encouraged to come regularly to the ashram for satsang or reinforcement of their beliefs. They are encouraged to remember what Mission spokesman Joe Anctil told us, "The ashram is a state of mind, not a place to live."
However, the Divine Light Mission is still feeling a financial squeeze. In selling real estate around the country the Mission has closed ashrams. With the closing of ashrams came a decline in income. Where premies move out of the ashrams they no longer turn over their weekly paychecks to the Mission. It must then rely on their voluntary contributions. In December 1976, Anctil said the monthly income from contributions had dropped from a high of more than $100,000 a month to $80,000.
On one side of the enormous wainscoted entry hall is a staircase that leads to sleeping rooms for the fifteen permanent ashram dwellers. Premies, we are told, sleep two to a room here. On the other side of the hall are floor-to-ceiling carved-oak sliding doors that lead to the living room where nightly satsang is conducted. Here, premies meet to discuss their experiences with Maharaj Ji's knowledge to reinforce their own practice and to convert visitors to the practice of Divine Light meditation.
Beyond the hall is a dining room, with tables set for far more than the handful of premies who live here. Food is important to premies. Vegetarianism is a way of separating them from their previous lifestyles and their families. It is a factor that gives them a sense of commonality. Nearly all the meals here are prepared by Alice, the ashram housemother, and Carol, her assistant. The two are sisters. Alice is in her mid-to-late twenties and says her life as cook and housekeeper is the most satisfying she has ever had. She devotes full time to directing the housekeeping, the grocery shopping, and running the kitchen. The quality of the diet in the ashram is dependent on her skill, and one suspects the kitchen is a gathering place because Alice encourages it. Alice says that as housemother she feels appreciated and important in this group she needs and loves. According to her, the life she led before Divine Light was not a directed or purposeful one. In and out of schools, Alice says she was not the daughter her mother wanted. Although Alice and Carol's mother does not approve of the "religious part" of their premie existence, she does profess to approve of the newfound order the two young women have instilled in their lives.
Pilarzyk;

Like some of its youth culture counterparts, the Divine Light Mission movement experienced rapid growth from its inception in the United States in 1971. By the summer of 1974, the American movement had grown to a total of 27 ashrams which housed over 1200 of an estimated 50,000 members or "premies." However, its development was not as simple, gradual, consistent, nor as long-lasting as changes within other "Eastern imports" such as the Hare Krsna movement. [...] By July of 1972, the first national conference of DLM leaders took place, and guidelines were laid down which specified certain rules and regulations for U.S. ashrams. DLM officials note that this led to an initial departure of followers who viewed ashram life more as an economic convenience than as a step toward the enhancement of the spiritual path to God-realization. [7]

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I added a brief mention of the first ashrams in India, taken from the Shri Hans wikipedia page.Msalt (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I added more from All God's Children (book),(as transcribed here [10]) because the existing excerpt did not seem to encompass the entire scholarship of the authors on the topic of DLM ashrams. My additions are indented for clarity. I'd previously asked Jossi if his excerpts were complete and he seemed to say he didn't know. Apparently they are not complete and we should avoid drafting material based on them until they are confirmed to be complete and representative. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
No problems, I will see if I can find the time to transcribe some more from the other. We should do the same with the van der Lans text being discussed elsewhere. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Price
The Divine Light Mission as a social organization.
Sociological Review, 27, Page 279-296/1979
By Maeve Price [11] [8]

From the small beginning of one mahatma in London and a handful of premies, the mission grew, with up to half a dozen mahatmas at any one time giving knowledge, the establishment of Divine Information Centres in most major towns and cities and the setting up of about forty ashrams (designated premie households) throughout Britain by the end of 1973. (9) Ashrams played an important part in the mission's structure. Here premies had chosen to live in small communal households, under vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. In practice they were under the direct supervision of head office and acted as cadres for the whole movement.

The ashrams which should have provided a sound financial basis for the mission's operations were not even self-financing and had to be supported from funds. The mission moved into a recessionary phase which lasted until the Autumn of 1975. It gradually contracted its public activities, shed its unprofitable and burdensome possessions and even disbanded the ashrams, the last of which closed down in September 1976.

This marriage brought about an exodus from the ashrams, the stable core of the mission which had been a vital means of social control, as premies flocked to get married and began to produce their own children, within customary marriage structures. It was an important turning point for the mission. The followers seemed to grow up overnight into adults with normal family responsibilities and ties. The base of support inevitably shifted from the ashrams to the wider premie community. This meant that central control was very much weakened and that the ordinary, non-ashram premie began to play a more important role in determining the mission's fortunes. At the same time, many premies were shaken by the marriage and felt almost betrayed by their leader. It is apparent that the marriage was responsible for a loss of morale and therefore of support for the mission by many premies. (26)

A further example of erratic policy changes is Maharaj Ji's attitude towards the ashrams. In 1976, Maharaj Ji suggested that ashrams were retreats, or hothouses for premies who could not cope with the rigours of living in the everyday world. It was time, he said, for asharam premies to face the world and live as ordinary premies in the community. The direction was part of a policy which had been slowly developing for a long time, of weakening the powers of the National Office and the privileges of ashram premies (who received free passage and entrance to festivals) and putting more, albeit diffuse, power into the local premie communities.

The leader now appears to be changing his mind. In Britain, plans are being made to open a few ashrams for premies who wish to live a devotional life and it is intended that an initiator will reside in each ashram and look after the spiritual welfare of the local community. It would seem in fact that the ashrams acted as a pivot for the mission's stability and this is now being appreciated. At the same time the stress on the community premie, which had led to what was now viewed as excessive democratization, which was strongly repudiated by Maharaj Ji at Frankfurt, has now been controlled by the simple device of blocking public communication channels upwards to the head office. For more than twelve months now, the national publication which carried letters from premies, often extremely critical of other premies and the head office, (but never of Maharaj Ji), has not been printed. Instead premies receive an exclusive diet of full transcripts of Maharaj Ji's satsang at various festivals across the world. Maharaj Ji made it known that he disliked his satsang to be edited and only extracts of it published. At present then, premies have neither a public platform for discussing the mission's policies nor a vehicle for receiving an interpreted policy via the mission's officials. Such a situation, though increasing Maharaj Ji's control over the movement, does so at the cost of expansion and middle-management confidence. It is not likely to succeed as a long-term policy As Beckford has suggested, in order to prosper voluntary organizations must secure a continuous supply of human and material resources through their members' voluntary endeavours, their financial contributions and their readiness to obey organizational rules. This means that not only must leaders adapt their strategies to the requirements of the members but also that organizational objectives 'can only be achieved … if objectives can be explicitly defined and unambiguously operationalized'. (29) In the case of DLM, confusion over organizational goals and lack of firm leadership control at the intermediate and grass root levels, combined with a following who are being pulled in one direction after another without structural channels of two-way communication, all lead to confusion and lack of desire to recruit new members. What is surprising is not that the mission is no longer expanding significantly, but that it manages to survive at all. This answer to the second issue must lie in the mission's continued ability to satisfy fundamental psychological and social needs of its adherents

The Cultural Context

The effect of the cultural environment within which the mission functions has been implicit in the above discussion. The basic problem arises through attempting to establish a 'radical' meditation sect, with loosely formulated objectives and unspecific demands upon the following, 'within the world'. Evidence from other newly established religious sects suggest that very strict control over members, through explicit roles, is essential for organizational strength. Wallis has shown how the Scientologists carefully control the behaviour of their adherents both through a highly complex hierarchical bureaucratic structure and through its systems of rules to cover almost all contingencies. In the case of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, control over members is exercised through a thorough-going process of resocialization within the temple, which effectively insulates the devotees from outside, societal pressures. On the other hand, different strategies have been employed by the Children of God which have varied from cutting the following off from contact with society in rural colonies, to the more recent emphasis on the 'cash nexus' whereby the members are encouraged by actual cash incentives to sell the group's literature to the public. According to Wallis, at the time of his study, it was going through a phase of 'colportage and routine proselytization'. From the point of view of this thesis, however, the organization still had clear cut goals with strict control over the membership and its contact with the wider society. Another example is that of the United Family, which retains its organizational strength through a thorough induction and training into Family life and careful regulation of the members' contact with the outside world. In all the above cases, the goals are explicit and members' relations with the wider public are constrained by explicit rules of conduct which are legitimated through established authority structures.

In the case of the DLM, there are no regulations governing behavior towards the public at large, nor are there explicit proselytizing procedures. Nor are premies protected from wider cultural influences through any form of insulation from the world. In the early days, the life of an ashram premie, apart from time spent in employment, revolved round the ashram. There were very few books, no television and no visits to the cinema or recreational centres. The ashram premie's life was strictly controlled. Following the closure of the ashrams, premies have a choice of how often, or even whether or not, to attend satsang, to meditate and to do service. Wider influences constantly impinge on the premies' devotional life and there are still no clear guidelines for regulating behaviour in relation to the world. It must also be stated however that the ashrams, situated as they usually were in terraced houses in urban areas with premies expected to earn their living in the secular world, were not ideally placed as the devotional centres of an introversionist sect.

Summary

Momento, I do not think that you can just copy/paste that. What I suggested is to summarize these verbatim quotes, into a few paragraphs in a new section about "Ashrams". That section can also include the material in the criticism section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right and I, or someone else. will attend to it. I just thought the info was so good that I'd drop it in and fix it up later.Momento (talk) 06:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I had a go. There was a lot of repetition among the sources, which only makes the information more important, but means it didn't boil down to a lot of points. I think this could be used to clarify the lifestyle difference between receiving knowledge in the 70s, joining the DLM, and joining an ashram, distinctions that seem to be lost on some scholars. Rumiton (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you can attempt to incorporate the sources above together with the criticism section, as all these sources discuss the ashrams. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Rumiton, do you have a source for saying that the Rajasthan ashram was the first? Otherwise we need to remove it as OR. I took that phrasing directly from the source (which is the Shri Hans wikipedia page). It does not say Rajasthan was the first. Msalt (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Who is going to summarize the enormous amount of material we've accumulated?Momento (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I think Galanter's first hand experience with visiting an ashram is worthy of quoting. Comments?Momento (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't have any problem with any of Galanter's quotes, but I am not comfortable with the way it is presented in the article. Jayen, can we either break up the quotes, quote them with some standardized formatting, and/or not use all of them? Adding a few sentences from a selection of 6 pages, and merely adding an ellipsis in between them is only going to make people wonder what was left out in the interspersed 5 and a half pages that didn't get quoted (especially given the POV concerns on this topic already). Possibly {{Cquote}} would work here? Also, I think we can strike his credentials from the article, maybe just say "In his book,Cults : Faith, Healing and Coercion, Marc Galanter writes:", although, since he has his own page here, even the book mention might be unecessary, it can be seen by clicking on his name anyway. -- Maelefique (talk) 14:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ashram section

Needs additional material from Messer, Galanter, Geaves, Melton Parke & Stoner, Pylarzyk, Maeve. See #Ashrams. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that we've got lots of task to handle on these topics for the time being. However, it'd be helpful to know if the quotes that are collected at #Ashrams fully include everything that the authors say about DLM ashrams, or are they just a selection? Is there a reason to limit the material to those authors, or may we add other sources that discuss the DLM's ashrams? ? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
We can add more sources if these news sources provide new material. The page numbers are noted (see Ref section below) so it will be easy to check if these are complete sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
You don't know if the material you've posted is complete or not? If we're not sure then maybe we should wait until the accuracy and completeness of the excerpts can be confirmed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Mmmm, don't think so. The material is verifiable, and I will not transcribe full pages of books. Sorry. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it DLM or EV that was in operation when the ashrams were shut-down, and why does neither article mention that? It should be in one of them. -- Maelefique (talk) 05:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a real problem with the way this section reads now. It's fine until we get to Galanter, but then it jumps to a highly POV description of ashrams as some kind of paradise on earth, with no context. Furthermore, it's just confusing. That paragraph, even in acceptable, would need a better transition to let us know Galanter was describing how the ashram looked to this unnamed observer. I had to read it 3 times to figure that out. And who is this "He"? Apparently the original article names someone, instead of saying "He" -- why wsa the name omitted? How is the reader supposed to know who "He" is?
And, to expand on Maelefique's comment, the narrative -- which ends upbruptly when Galanter takes over the section -- should continue through the closing of the ashrams, possbily also mentioning the brief de-emphasis of ashrams in 1976 and renewed emphasis on them. Msalt (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Uhh, blame me for that crappy edit, I was hoping Jayen would fix his own addition, but he didn't seem so inclined. I took a stab hoping it could be cleaned up further (it was kinda late). the "he" is actually to improve the context/flow, as the original quote was "I", which didn't make sense with the rest of the sentence either. The "he" refers to Galanter. It definitely paints a rosy picture of the ashrams, but I haven't come across any conflicting opinions of the conditions within them either. I will look through Downton again, he has some references to them, but I don't remember anything negative about the actual ashrams themselves (aside from the whole, "give us most/all your money please" thing). I would think that the ashram atmosphere would be pretty good, as all the people in them were completely "in to" their beliefs anyway so I'm not too surprised that he encountered that kind of atmosphere. We could reduce that paragraph possibly. To something saying that the ashrams were felt to be a very positive place by those in them, generally, as indicated by Galanter, cite, cite, cite and Downton, cite cite cite, and others? Would that help? Unrelated note, can we mush (yup, "mush"!) the 2 ashram sections on this page together? Why do we have 2? -- Maelefique (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Maelefique, I submit the following as excuses for my inaction: 1. Dratted real life temporarily keeping me from following this discussion in detail 2. Even if I had seen your comment earlier, I did not add the Galanter quote (it wozn't me, guv!), but only did some minor formatting on it after Will shortened it: [12] [13] [14] I will have a go now and look up the page numbers. Jayen466 20:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, it was in fact all from the same page (page 25). Momento had quoted a continuous chunk of text in his earlier edit; Will then had punched a few holes into it, to shorten it. That being so, I've restored the earlier style with the ellipses, since the things taken out are just single sentences. However, I am in favour of following Will's suggestion below, i.e. summarising the section so we get a proper narrative rather than quoting Galanter at length. Any objections? Jayen466 20:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Instead of quoting Galanter at length can we just say that the ashrams were reported to be warm and inviting? FWIW, I have a newspaper clipping from a small city where the reporter makes an ashram visit and has a similar experience. We don't need a quotation to convey the facts. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification Jayen, that real life thang can really be a pain huh? (that's why I sit here all day locked up with lots of coffee instead). And hey, I'm totally willing to blame Will instead if you are! :) Anyways, I'm quite happy with the edit reversion with the page #'s added. I just wanted some proper cites, which looks like what we ended up with.
Having said that, Will, it looks like your newspaper clipping, Galanter, and my comment above about a possible change in that paragraph all seem to be pointing the same way. I think we can go with the ashrams being warm and inviting,and without direct quotes, but I'd still like to see some citations on that broad concept included too (see my suggestion above). -- Maelefique (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Split

Added more info as to why there was a split. That is, Rawat wanting to manifest his own vision.Momento (talk) 02:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

We should attibute that viewpoint to Melton, unless it's expressed by other scholars as well. Since we're using Melton's words almost verbatim, we should put them in quotation marks. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Also "As Prem Rawat developed from a thirteen year old to an adolescent, about to be married and raise his own family, he was no longer prepared to be a figurehead whilst others dictated the direction and management of the movement established on the basis of his teachings" Geaves, Ron, Globalization, charisma, innovation, and tradition: An exploration of the transformations in the organisational vehicles for the transmission of the teachings of Prem Rawat (Maharaji), 2006, Journal of Alternative Spiritualities and New Age Studies, 2 44-62. I'll find others.Momento (talk) 04:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Momento, please be careful to keep the wording of your frequent edits neutral. The sum effect of your edits was to introduce a lot of pro-Rawat POV and puffery into the article. There is nothing neutral about phrases such as "In order to realize his vision...." I have corrected this. Msalt (talk) 05:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you need to re-read the sources and self revert as soon as possiible.
1. Geaves, Ron, Globalization, charisma, innovation, and tradition: An exploration of the transformations in the organisational vehicles for the transmission of the teachings of Prem Rawat (Maharaji), 2006, Journal of Alternative Spiritualities and New Age Studies, 2 44-62. = "As Prem Rawat developed from a thirteen year old to an adolescent, about to be married and raise his own family, he was no longer prepared to be a figurehead whilst others dictated the direction and management of the movement established on the basis of his teachings"
2.J. Gordon Melton, Christopher Partridge (Eds.), New Religions: A Guide. New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities. pp.201-202, Oxford University Press, USA (2004) ISBN 978-0195220421= "As Maharaji began to grow older and establish his teachings worldwide he increasingly desired to manifest his own vision of development and growth. This conflict resulted in a split between Maharaji and his family, ostensibly caused by his mother's inability to accept Maharaji's marriage to an American follower rather than the planned traditional arranged marriage."
3. Downton, Sacred Journeys. "Nearly sixteen, he was ready to assume a more active part in deciding what direction the movement should take. This of course meant that he had to encroach on his mother's territory and, given the fact that she was accustomed to having control, a fight was inevitable."Momento (talk) 07:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't just Melton who made the claim but all of the above. It would be better to express to common consensus rather than just quote one source.Momento (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Momento, you are edit warring. I strongly suggest you self-revert immediately. I will post to your user page as well. Only one of your sources uses the phrase "to manifest his own vision", a disfavored tertiary source. Puffery and non-neutral language in another encyclopedia does not become acceptable just because it is in an encyclopedia. Jossi, would please explain to Momento the difference between BRD and reverting a revert? He was bold, I reverted. Or is he allowed BRR for some reason? Msalt (talk) 06:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I only count one revert by Momento, which is not encouraged (OK, not by most editors) but which is allowed under the probation terms. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but how is reverting a revert not edit-warring? The 1RR and 3RR restrictions clearly state that they are an electric fence, not an entitlement, and that edit-warring which doesn't technically violate the restrictions can still result in a block for edit warring. Msalt (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Will.
I certainly agree. However since we set the limit at one, it's inappropriate to punish someone for staying in the limit. While with 3RR some editors who repeatedly use of all three can be blocked as disruptive. Rreverting once every day could be disruptive if it goes on for a long time or with no discussion. For the meantime I'd say let's all try to find ways to avoid reverting each other. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I really hate to do this, as I am firmly opposed to edit-warring. But since Momento will not accept removal or changes to this text, and it clearly violates BLP as unduly positive and poorly sourced, I must remove it again. I note that no one other than Momento, who has been blocked twice for edit-warring on these articles on behalf of the POV of his acknowledged religious teacher, has defended this text. Msalt (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are the three scholars' descriptions of what Rawat wanted to do as he grew older -

1. not allow others to dictate the direction and management of the movement.(Geaves)
2. manifest his own vision of development and growth. (Downton)
3. decide what direction the movement should take.(Melton)

and this desire caused

1. a deep rift in Prem Rawat’s family.(Geaves)
2. he had to encroach on his mother's territory and, given the fact that she was accustomed to having control, a fight was inevitable.(Downton)
3. a split between Maharaji and his family, ostensibly caused by his mother's inability to accept Maharaji's marriage to an American follower(Melton)

So how about "As Rawat turned 16, his desire to decide to dictate the direction of the movement led to split with his mother. His marriage to an American follower in 1974 caused a permanent rift and his eldest brother gained control of Indian DLM in a lawsuit whilst Rawat retained control of Western DLM.Momento (talk) 09:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe "Rawat's desire to direct the movement himself placed him in conflict with his mother, and his marriage to an American follower at the age of 16 caused a permanent rift. Following a lawsuit, his eldest brother gained control of the Indian DLM, while Rawat continued in control of the western organisation." Rumiton (talk) 11:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
How about, we don't speculate about the motives of Rawat and his family, and instead state neutrally and factually what happened? "In 1974, Rawat's brother and mother sued him for control of the DLM, after Rawat became a legally emancipated minor and married a flight attendant 8 years his senior." I could cite a dozen or more verifiable sources that say exactly that. The fact that 3 sources -- one an avowed follower of Rawat -- speculate about motives does not require (or allow) us to do so too. Msalt (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
We're not speculating about Rawat's motives. We're reporting about what scholars said. And it is an important point because it explains the build up to the split.Momento (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Speculation is not any less speculation because one controversial scholar, who has been accused of accepting gifts from NRMs he writes positive things about, says it in an encyclopedia. Nor is puffery any less puffery. This text remains POV and I must remove it again.Msalt (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a job for admin Will. Removing important material from three scholars that say the rift began by Rawat wanting to take control. And we are working on the best wording. If you're really serious about scholars who may be compromised, please go across to Criticism of Prem Rawat and remove the opinion the Catholic monk Van der Lans expressed in a book commissioned and paid for by a Catholic organisation.Momento (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with saying that Rawat wanted to take control. It's when you add the phrase "he wanted to manifest his vision" that the POV creeps in. Note how much more neutral taking control sounds. As for Criticism of Prem Rawat, I have never seen that page and certainly don't have any extra time to edit more pages. I would like it if we could expand the /Scholars page of Prem Rawat as a one-stop shopping center for PR sources though, and work out our issues about sources there. Then we could use the sources at various places in the PR Wikipedia constellation. Msalt (talk) 06:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

<< :::::::::: Msalt, regarding your removal, that is exactly what Melton says in page 201 of that source: "As Maharaji began to grow older and establish his teachings worldwide he increasingly desired to manifest his own vision of development and growth. This conflict resulted in a split between Maharaji and his family, ostensibly caused by his mother's inability to accept Maharaji's marriage to and American follower rather than the planned traditional arranged marriage." If needed, rather than asserting this as a fact, it can be attributed to Melton, as in "According to Melton..." ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe you that Melton says those words. But cherry picking the words of one source -- a disputed scholar at that, in a tertiary source -- who speculates on the motives of an actor in a 35 year old conflict is not appropriate. It's not neutral, it's not mentioned by dozens of other sources who mention the other aspects of this conflict (notably the marriage, coming of age, lawsuit, India vs. rest of world result, etc.), and it serves a clear POV purpose. Basically, a textbook example of WP:SYN. And attributing it to Melton does not solve any of these problems. If anything, it heightens the synthesis in my opinion. It's exactly what a debater would say if they were using Melton to make a point. Msalt (talk) 06:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I would hope that you apply the same standards to other sources, such as Randi (see discussion at Teachings article), van der Lans, and others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely, Jossi. I have stated from the day I started editing these articles, pretty much, that the Randi source was snide and a source that was flawed at best. I openly called for editors on either side to find a better representative of criticism of Rawat. I am bothered though by the fact that pro-Rawat editors have often removed sources they don't like -- and sometimes for good reason -- but without any good faith effort to replace them with better sources, at least when they support criticism of Rawat. I don't include you in that, by the way -- you have done good work finding better (or any) sources for points on both sides of the issue. I don't know anything about Van der Lans, and will need to find and read the original to have an intelligent opinion.
While you know that I have no fear of acting boldly, I do try to be respectful of the many hours and months people have put into working over these issues. I also try to act in the relatively LESS contentious areas first, figuring I can have the most impact and best avoid edit-warring etc. by doing so. As a result, I have not done much at all in the Criticism areas. In fact, I haven't even looked at the separate Criticism of PR article. At some point I would like to but time is limited and I want to make sure I have something worth saying before I speak.
As I have mentioned, when time permits I would probably first like to put my efforts into beefing up the /Scholars subpage where hopefully we can reach some general agreements about sources, and then build the article on that foundation. Msalt (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. My hope is that at a certain point the article can reach a stable status and we can all put our efforts in imp;roving other articles. 17:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I've added "over the direction of DLM" to the first sentence as in "In 1974 Rawat's conflict with his family over the direction of DLM became a permanent rift after he became an emancipated minor and married an American follower." I think that covers it.Momento (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
That's much better than manifesting his vision, thank you. Msalt (talk) 06:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Momento, I just had time to go back and read your revisions to the Split in Leadership section -- that dreaded "real life" business keeps interfering with my Wikipedia editing -- and I just wanted to say, directly, that you did an excellent, thorough and very neutral job. Thank you very much. We disagree often enough, but I relish the fact that we worked together to make that section much better. Msalt (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ref format consistency

We now have a mixture of ref format in the article. Unless there are objections, I would want to wikignome the article and move all citations using the proper forma, i.e. [Notes including author, year: page number + text cite if available] in ref tags, and move the full name of book or journal to the references section. Just wikignoming without changing text in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort, but I wouldn't want you to have to violate your commitment to not edit these articles. But thanks for pointing out something that needs to be done. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem doing that, ...ahh, except I see it's already been done... never mind! -- Maelefique (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Reception draft

Some intial text that could be used as the opener for the "Reception" section. Full {{cite book}} will be provided later on are provided below.

The Divine Light Mission has been described in various and sometime conflicting terms, including a new religious movement,[9], a cult, [10], a charismatic religious sect,[11], a movement based on the Sant Mat tradition,[12], a new religion,[13], an alternative religion,[14], a Radhasoami offshoot, [15], an orthodox Sikh community,[16], a spin-off of traditional religions,[17], an Advait Mat related tradition[18], a defunct religious movement,[19] and other related terms.

I will work on the rest of the section during the weekend, as suggested above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. A comprehensive round-up. Jayen466 18:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Very comprehensive but isn't it overkill. If we take this approach to everything Rawat becomes a guru, a teacher, a master, a leader, a guide, a figurehead, a charismatic leader etc. This expansion started as a balance to the limited claim that DLM was known as a cult. I think we shouldn't loss sight of the goal to present facts and let the reader make up their minds rather than try to give every opinion we can find. And it doesn't help readability to have long descriptive lists.Momento (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I accept, admit, agree, allow, assent, concede, concur and grant that you may have a point. Perhaps a couple of the terms are surplus to requirements; but I still like the idea. Jayen466 00:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we can conflate the sources for new religion, new religious movement, and alternative religion, but I would argue that the rest is useful as it shows that there is not a specific way that the DLM was described, as well as to show our readers that some of the characterizations are competing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
There is one very obvious omission -- which happens to be the term most often used, at least in the 1970s. How do you justify not including the term "cult" in such a long list? Even Momento had it in his list. It is simply not neutral or accurate to pretend it was not used (frequently) to describe the group, whether you think that term was unfair or not. Msalt (talk) 06:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Read it again, Msalt. You may have missed it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
You're right, my apologies. I would quote Emily Litella but I'm afraid to find out how few editors are old enough to know the reference. :) Msalt (talk) 06:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
That sentence above is not bad, Jossi, thanks for writing it. Since it provides an overview, I'd say it belongs in the intro. We can flesh out the various aspects of the DLM in the main article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Here is the draft: Talk:Divine_Light_Mission/Reception_draft. It needs polish (hopefully Jaen can work his magic), and a few of the other sources that have not been used yet. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


Pretty good, Jossi, if I may say so. In the absense of magic I shall work some of my nit-picking pedantry on it. Then it can go where it seems best to fit. Rumiton (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I've cobbled it around a bit, but I think it needs some more looking at. Still looks a bit promotional to my eye. Rumiton (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it needs any magic at all, post-Rumiton, and reads very well. Some thoughts:
  • The phrase "Bromley's assessment was repeated by the psychiatrist Saul V. Levine" could be improved, because, of Bromley's assertions listed, Levine, from memory, only repeats the last, concerning public perception.
  • It is not clear where the Galanter quote begins and ends, we appear to have an orphaned quotation mark after continued practice".
  • The text devoted to the positive effects of meditation, sourced to Galanter, Richardson and Downton, perhaps takes up slightly too large a proportion of the total and has some redundancies. Perhaps the "He quotes one subject as saying ... and happier." sentence is dispensable, as it is essentially summarised by what precedes it.
Notwithstanding the above quibbles, the section is a great improvement over what we have, with exemplary citation, and I am in favour of inserting it into the article. Jayen466 15:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I boldly acted on your suggestions, which seemed to me good ones. One question remains regarding the last sentence, the problem of critics stating that emotional experiences were more valued than intellectual ones. The statement, "In response, the religious scholar Ron Geaves, himself a member of the movement, accused Foss and Larkin of bias, pointing to the number of people attracted to the DLM" seems unrelated. Is there a better comment available from a good source? Otherwise we should probably just leave it out. Rumiton (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If there are no other comments, let's move the new reception section to the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Done, plus a slight reduction of some redundant material. Rumiton (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me Rumiton, but I had already asked for tht draft written by Jossi to not be added while it's still being reviewed. I think it has significant problems that are easier resolved while it's still in draft form. I'm going to revert your posting of Josi's draft until we're all agreed that ti's ready. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


Levine
This amterial was previosuly removed form the Prem Rawat article (which makes sense because it's about DLM):
  • The psychiatrist Saul V. Levine, who has published several articles about cults and new religious movements, wrote in an article titled Life in Cults, published in 1989, that public perception is that the Divine Light Mission, the Hare Krishna, the Unification Church, and the Children of God are seen as cults held in low esteem and that families' perceptions "that their children are being financially exploited" is one of the most pernicious and malevolent aspects of these groups, where "the leaders live in ostentation and offensive opulence." He also wrote that "[...] in the Divine Light Mission, members are expected to turn over all material possessions and earnings to the religion and to abstain from alcohol, tobacco, meat, and sex" although at the time of writing the Indian style ashrams had been closed for more than six years.
Is this viewpoint adequately represented in the draft? I son't see anything about fears of financial exploitation while leaders live in opulence. Can we add some of this to the draft? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
It may have been lost in the last edit to the article. I have re-added a summary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, thta's more representative. Let's hold off on moving this material to the article a little while longer, if you please. I haven't had a chance to review it yet. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Have tweaked the Levine passage and the final sentence, pls review. Jayen466 22:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, Will, review it and give some feedback if you have some. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on the review, but had a problem in the second paragraph - Should "Barker 1983" be "Bromley 1983"? If not, then what is it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
AH, it must be E. Barker's "Of gods and men". The summary appears to contradict itself, on the one hand saying that the DLM was "seen by the public as peculiar rather than threatening", on the other hand it has him saying that "the news media's uncritical acceptance of discrediting reports by the anti-cult movement and those of apostates, accounts which created a wide-spread public perception of "mind control" and other "cult" stereotypes." Does anyone have this reference material so we can confirm the summary? Are we using quotes to indicate we're quoting his words or are those scare quotes? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
It should be Bromley's: The Future of New Religious Movements, pp.113-4. You can find it in Google Books. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Google Books has the wrong ISBN for the source, thus the mistake. The correct ISBN number for Bromley and Hammond is ISBN 0865542384 nd not ISBN 0865540950. I have corrected this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This page [15] indicates that page 113 is part of a chapter by E. Burke Rochford, Jr., titled "Dialectical Processes in the Development of Hare Krishna". Is that the correct cite? Google books won't show page 113, so I again ask if anyone has access to this material? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
PS: I noted above but I'll say here too for visibility that I've reverted the replacement of the exisintg text with Jossi's draft. I'm reviewing it and expect to make major changes. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Uncalled for, Will. There is no reason not to continue improving the material in the article itself. Bad call, IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, when I asked you to hold off putting your version in to the article you agreed. It's full of problems. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I did not add the draft to the article, Will. Others did and continued working on it. Rather than revert to a lesser quality version you can help and better it alongside others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
No, you didn't need to because another member of the team did so. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I restored the version previously developeded by other editors. This version had been considerably discussed and passed by consensus. Please work to further improve it. Rumiton (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
There's not a consensus for this. I specifically asked that it not be added. Jossi specificlaly agreed. Then, tucked away in the middle of the thread, Rumiton announced that he was going to go ahead and replaced it anyway. It appears to me that this is a case of tag teaming to get Jossi's flawed version into the article. I strongly disapprove and again request that the material not be added until the review is complete. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
What are the flaws you found? Can these not be addressed? I am sure these can. I would appreciate it also if you refrain from calling this "tag teaming". I was not involved in any of that stuff, when the draft was added other editors continued working on it, so why don;t you join them as well? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
After Rumiton's addition of the draft,[16] I count edits by five editors, including you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
None of them found the seveal mistakes in citations, so I don't they did an dequate reivew. Whyt did you agree to let me take time to review it, but support Rumiton adding it anyway just 13 hours later? Do you think it's unreasonable to have me review the draft? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's concentrate on fixing the citation errors that we have, and thanks to Will's alertness in spotting them. The "medium-tension" passage is on page 113–114 of The Future of New Religious Movements by David G. Bromley and Phillip E. Hammond (these pages display fine for me in google books). The other sentence about the decline of DLM and other movements in fact comes from page 227 of the same book. [17] Jayen466 03:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Aha, I hadn't realized that Google Books doesn't show some material if you're not logged in. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I have to wonder how carefully the previous reviewers checked this material considering how many mistakes there are. I'm also concerned about the tone and balance and want to make a thorough review. Is there a problem with that? Considering Jossi's acknowledge COI, to just add his draft without allowing a review of his material appears to me to be inappropriate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I am certainly grateful to you for having checked it. I had read the Bromley text before (it was discussed somewhere above) and recognised the content, but I did not recheck the page numbers (nor did anyone else, obviously). Some of the other text I took on faith, so by all means, let's go through it with a fine comb; it is obviously worth it.
I don't mind if the text is in the article for the mo, I thought it was better than what we had, and Rumiton and I had done some work on it to shift the balance towards something less promotional.
As you point out, the text on p. 113 and 114 is not actually by Bromley, and the text on page 227 is by Bromley and Shupe. We need to find an elegant way of indicating so. Jayen466 04:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Aside from the outright errors, I'm even more concerned by the lack of balance. It is still promotional. Minor papers and obscure sources are given prominence, but the overall reception by the public and even scholars don't appear to be properly represented. And I think that some of the material belongs in other sections. So overall, it needs major work, work that's easier to do on the draft page. I'm very disappointed by the failure of editors here to work with others and towards consensus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I've verified the wordings and fixed the publication data and page numbers for the following paragraphs: Bromley/Levine, Gartrell/Shannon, and Richardson. Jayen466 05:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought we were doing quite well. Plenty of discussion and cautious editing. I think the main issue is readability, that is we jump back and forwards in time by having "succession" and "split" sections separated by "international expansion" and too many small sections. As for Will's concern about being "promotional", the fact is that apart from the "news media's uncritical acceptance of discrediting reports by the anti-cult movement and those of apostates" most scholars agree that DLM was free of the abuse and weirdness that marked many so called cults.Momento (talk) 06:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing that one, but it's not the last. What's "Levine, 1999: 96, 102"? There's no 1999 book listed by Levine. How could this material have been reviewed with so many mistake? And why do editors defend this error-ridden draft? Let's take it back to draft page and fix the larger problems. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
As for Levine, the publication year in the ref is wrong. It should be 1989 (as it says in the text itself). The corresponding publication is in the references section. Jayen466 12:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I've fixed it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The only page numbers quoted are 96 and 102. [18] [19] Ref updated accordingly. Jayen466 13:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I started putting more complete refs for Geaves, Foss & Larkin etc but is that the right thing to do? Or is the intention that readers go to the abbreviated "footnotes" and then go to the more complete "References"?Momento (talk) 07:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's have short references for the books listed in the References section; long-term, we should convert to that format throughout. Jayen466 13:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Why are we devoting so much space to Richardson? His paper barely mentions DLM. Furthermore, the quoted material in our article is actually being quoted in the paper from an earlier paper of his. If that paper actually concerns the DLM then we should quote it directly. Until someone can explain the inclusion the Richardson material should be deleted outright. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I count 8 mentions of DLM in Richardson's book but unable to see text.Momento (talk) 08:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
You haven't read the underlying material but you're sure that this is a good summary of it? Well, I've read the paper and the assertions in this article do not directly concern the DLM. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I haven't suggested this is a "good summary". I was just pointing out that I couldn't read the text and therefore couldn't help.Momento (talk) 09:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
If you don't think it's a good summary then we can remove your name from the purported consensus that thinks this draft is good. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, Will, the Richardson cite quotes the results of his earlier review, in which DLM featured prominently (Richardson, Psychological and Psychiatric Studies of New Religions, 1985). It might be better to cite the earlier review directly, rather than quoting its summary in a later paper, but the 1985 text does not seem to be available in questia, nor elsewhere online, as far as I can tell. Note that if you read all of Levine, there are also significant areas of overlap (as well as some differences) between Levine and Richardson, e.g. regarding members' authentic sense of well-being. It could likewise be argued that we do not give a fair summary of Levine, who also addresses DLM as just one of several movements treated in the article. Personally, I don't find there is a problem with our use of Richardson, nor that of Levine. We can't be expected to provide an overall summary of each source cited. Jayen466 14:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the Broley material that was so badly mis-cited, there's still a more significant problem as I outlined about. I'll repeat my comment here: The summary appears to contradict itself, on the one hand saying that the DLM was "seen by the public as peculiar rather than threatening", on the other hand it has him saying that "the news media's uncritical acceptance of discrediting reports by the anti-cult movement and those of apostates, accounts which created a wide-spread public perception of "mind control" and other "cult" stereotypes." Are we using quotes to indicate we're quoting his words or are those scare quotes? Does anyone have this reference material so we can confirm the summary? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I can find the first quote which is Bromley & Hammond but not the second Bromley & Shupe. It looks like two different books.Momento (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
It looks to me like the 2nd quote is talking about the perception of cults in general, not about the DLM in particular. If so it doesn't belong. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
These are from two different books? That's not reflected in the citations. Again, more errors. This material is not ready for the live page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Jayen had it right, above. All of that material is from Bromley and Hammond. I've found the material in Google, and my questions on it are answered. I've modified the text slightly. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Richardson

  • Other studies of group members, such as one by James T. Richardson, led to the claim that "life in the new religions is often therapeutic instead of harmful", and that other information would suggest that the young people attracted to these movements were affirming their idealism by their involvement. Richardson asserted that there is little data to support the almost completely negative picture painted by a few mental health professionals and others.[ref]Richardson, 1995: 147[/ref]
Per the discussion above I deleted the paragraph from Richardson. I think we can find other papers from that scholar which are more relevant to the DLM. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
What discussion above? Why this was deleted? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Let the record show that I objected to the deletion above, 14:35, 17 April 2008, and gave a rationale for keeping which remained unanswered. :-) Jayen466 21:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The material is mor definitively relevant and about the subject. If Will wants to add more text from the source, that would be OK. but removing the material, why? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I also note that we have the page number (p. 221) of the original paper by Richardson whose conclusions Richardson cites. I suggest that Richardson is a reliable source on the content of his own earlier paper. So we have the option of citing his earlier paper, to wit Psychological and psychiatric studies of new religions". In L. B Brown (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of religion (pp. 209-223). New York: Pergamon. with page reference p. 221. Jayen466 21:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
There's no question that Richardson is a reliable source. The issue is whether he's talking specifically about DLM or about NRMs in general. My reading of the material is that he's speaking generally. There are many, many sources that mention DLM and then make generalized conclusions about NRMs. If we start including them it'd be hard to draw the line. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I invite editors who want to retain the previous Richardson material to quote the parent source to show that it is directly relevant to the DLM, and not a general statement about NRMs. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The full quote by Richardson summarising his earlier review is available above, under #Additional sources. It clearly states that his review encompassed studies of a number of groups, including two studies of DLM. You raise the question, Will, of whether his review was specifically about DLM or about several NRMs. It was clearly about several. But the same applies to the Levine text, which we are all in agreement we should have, even though we quote quite selectively from it, and it applies equally well to Conway and Siegelman whom you introduced as a source earlier today. We are trying to map the range of responses to DLM; these multi-group studies seem to be a feature of the literature. If it's not alright to quote studies that treat a whole basket of NRMs simultaneously, then Levine, Conway and Siegelman would have to go too; I think the article would be poorer for that. Jayen466 22:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

<- BTW, I'm sorry I didn't see your earlier response. Anyway, I think it's a dangerous precedent to include sources that are making general statement about NRMs. The wording of the text makes it appear that Richardson condicted a study of DLM members, which isn't clear from the source (unless I missed something). I also think it's a dangerous practice to quote sources we haven't read. Some editors here opposed the use of a quote by Alan Watts becuase the context couldn't be determined to their satisfaction. FYI the Conway and Siegelman is about this group specifically. Regarding Levine, he lists a specific set of groups about which he makes his comment. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No prob. I am sorry the reception draft went in without your having nodded; some days had passed, and I thought you were alright with it. As for Levine, you say he lists a specific set of groups about which he makes his comment. The same is true about Richardson, see above. In fact, DLM is the last group he mentions just before he repeats his summary from his earlier paper. Jayen466 22:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Here is the qoute in case it is hard to find among all the miles of text:

Psychiatrist Marc Galanter's study of Unification Church members using a number of personality inventories revealed that "affiliation with the Unification Church apparently provided considerable and sustained relief from neurotic distress. Although the improvement was ubiquitous, a greater religious commitment was reported by those who indicated the most improvement" ( Galanter et al., 1979 , p. 168). His research on the Divine Light Mission led to similar conclusions: "The diversity of specific psychological symptoms alleviated here is notable. A decline was reported in symptoms affected by behavioral norms, such as drug taking and job trouble; it was also found in subjectively experienced symptoms, such as anxiety, not readily regulated" ( Galanter & Buckley, 1978 , p. 690). Galanter's provocative 1978 article propounded a biologically based relief effect, based on interaction of the human organism with features of the communal setting of the new religious groups. The article derived directly from the consistent finding across groups in Galanter's research of an ameliorative effect of participation for most members.
This earlier review of personality and psychiatric assessment of members of several new religions led me to conclude ( Richardson, 1985b) that:
The personality assessments of these group members reveal that life in the new religions is often therapeutic instead of harmful. Other information suggests that these young people are affirming their idealism by virtue of their involvement in such groups. Certainly there is some "submerging of personality" in groups which are communal or collective, simply because they do not foster the individualistic and competitive lifestyle to which we are accustomed, particularly in American society. However, there is little data to support the almost completely negative picture painted by a few (mental health professionals and others). (p. 221)
- Richardson, James, T. Clinical and Personality Assessment of Participants in New Religions, p.147,International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, Vol. 5, 1995

Jayen466 22:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a real stretch, and if we stretch that much then we're in danger of opening the flood gates to a vast array of sources that mention the DLM and then make general statements. Most of the material above quotes either Galanter or the 1985 Richardson paper. Why don't we find those and use them as the references? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Honestly don't see it; he lists the studies covered in his 1985 paper, including those on DLM, and specifically says his conclusions, which he quotes from his earlier paper (they are indented as a quote) are based on his review of these specific studies. The groups the statement refers to are named just as they are in Levine. But I have said enough on this now; for the record, I support the reintroduction of Richardson's summary as is. Jayen466 23:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's see if we can fix the problems with it.
  • Other studies of group members, such as one by James T. Richardson, led to the claim that "life in the new religions is often therapeutic instead of harmful", and that other information would suggest that the young people attracted to these movements were affirming their idealism by their involvement. Richardson asserted that there is little data to support the almost completely negative picture painted by a few mental health professionals and others.
  • Reviewing studies of a number of new religious movements, such as The Jesus Movement, the Unification Church, Children of God, and the Divine Light Mission, James T. Richardson, reiterates his earlier statement about them, that "life in the new religions is often therapeutic instead of harmful", and that other information would suggest that the young people attracted to these movements were affirming their idealism by their involvement.
That establishes the set of groups he's talking about, frames his remarks, makes it clear that he's quoting himself, and drops the last sentence about the negative picture, which we should include only if we're sure he's talking about the DLM. I'd accept text along these lines. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't quite hit the mark. In the 1995 paper we were quoting, he is not reviewing the studies you mention in your draft version; he is mainly presenting new research carried out in the intervening ten years (on other NRMs). What we were quoting is from the introduction to the 1995 paper, where he is summarising his 1985 paper. Now, in the 1985 paper, he reviewed the groups you mention and came to the conclusion which we quoted. This conclusion was based on his review of the studies of the groups you mention in your draft, among them DLM. Here an alternative suggestion:
  • Summarising his 1985 review of studies of a number of new religious movements, such as The Jesus Movement, the Unification Church, the Children of God group in Europe and the Divine Light Mission, James T. Richardson stated that "life in the new religions is often therapeutic instead of harmful", and that other information would suggest that the young people attracted to these movements were affirming their idealism by their involvement. Richardson asserted that his review found there was little data to support the almost completely negative picture of these groups painted by a few mental health professionals and others. Jayen466 00:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry this is so convoluted. At any rate, I am heading for bed now. :-) Cheers, Jayen466 00:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I still think that if we want this material we should just quote Galanter directly, but I suppose this can be used to show this particular viewpoint among researchers towards groups of this type. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I've added Jayen's re-write to the "reception" section. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
As for Conway/Siegelman, I've got the book open on screen. The graph we quote from, on p. 190, compares Scientology, The Way, DLM, Hare Krishna, Moonies, and Bible Sects as well as giving an overall average for all movements studied; the text on that page deals with the Children of God, the Hare Krishnas, Scientology, the Moonies and DLM. The book as a whole ranges far and wide, providing a very positive review of controversial deprogrammer Ted Patrick, describing the experience of parents of a Children of God member, and much more besides. Jayen466 22:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The graph is derived from the study in the Appendix. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I have looked at the Appendix now. I note that 80% of the DLM people questioned for this study had been "deprogrammed", and 55% of them had been abducted or kidnapped prior to their deprogramming. That is a noteworthy factor likely to have had some effect on the reponses they gave in the context of the study. Jayen466 23:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, the fact that there evidently were forcible abductions and deprogrammings of a number of premies seems noteworthy; shouldn't this perhaps also be mentioned in the article? Jayen466 00:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes to both of your points. I was a bit astonished to read in an account of the Millennium '73 that Ted Patrick was in the area looking for people to deprogram. The DLM was a target of the anti-cult movement, and that should be mentioned directly. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Random break

Can we find better sources than a local newspaper? (re: recent edits by Will Beback) 21:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jossi (talk • contribs)

The UPI is a reliable source. Would citing a 2nd newspaper carrying the same story help? Most of the article is quoting or summarizing Anctil. Since there'd be no way for an outsider to find the numbers, the statistics on income and membership must have come from the DLM. But if anyone can find better sources let's add those too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I've added a second source, an AP article, which basically confirms the UPI story. Apparently Anctil gave interviews to the major media outlets. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Protest

I strongly protest the deletion of excellent material from the Reception section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What material? We're discussing the Richardson material above. I'm not aware of any other significant deletion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I invite editors to compare the original draft Talk:Divine_Light_Mission/Reception_draft with the currently gutted section Talk:Divine_Light_Mission/Reception_draft_2 What is going on? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The material was moved to other parts of the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Where is Gratell and Shannon? Where is Richardson? What is the rationale for having a "reception" section at all? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Follow the refs. Gratrell and Shannon are in the "members" section, since they address that topic. I question why we devote so much space to their report. For Richardson see above. Much of the material in the "reception" section was really about specific topics and so was better placed there. What's left are overviews, general analyses, and your paragraph on terminology. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Gratell and Shannon describe the reception by the young generation that was attracted to the mission, same about other scholars. The reception section as it stands now is a joke. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
They describe how people became members. I think the "reception" section looks fine. Do you have a specific problem? Though you wrote it it doesn't belong to you. Other editors are allowed to make changes to your writing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
"Guru-ism" in Michaels and Haarshav, p.22 is described as Founded, proselytizing religions, "Guru-ism", the full quote and the scarequotes need to be used. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
as a founded, proselytizing religion, as "Guru-ism" is still incorrect. It should read: as a founded, proselytizing religion or "Guru-ism", or as a founded, proselytizing religion ("Guru-ism") to remain true to the source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
And this section of Galanter has been deleted without discussion - "In the context of long-term membership, Marc Galanter wrote that "over the long term of membership, meditation also played an important role in supporting a convert's continuing involvement." An analysis of the time members spent in meditation revealed that greater meditation time was associated with diminished neurotic distress. This association suggests that the emotional response to meditation acts as a reinforcement for its continued practice. The more a member meditated, the better the person was likely to feel."Momento (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
That material was deleted in response to your adding the same text to "Teachings".[20] I'm fine with it being in either article, but not in both. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Is there some Wiki policy I don't know of that says a source cannot be quoted in two articles.Momento (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:Common sense. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Summary style. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no a fixed rule on this, If you are summarizing an article in another article, you can mention a source in both. One article will have a full representation of the source, and the other can have a shorter summary. That is only one of the strategies that can be used. Common sense, always applies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
It's a large and rather POV block quote. It doesn't belong in two articles and I'm not sure it even belongs in one. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you clarify what do you mean by a "POV quote"? Are not all quotes representing the POV of the author? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I beleive you're familiar with the concept of cherrypicking. Of course quotes can be POV. To use that one quote as our summary of the views of Galanter on the DLM is a joke. The summary ("That is, the more a member meditated, in general, the better the person was likely to feel.") turns it into a farce. Who wrote that? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Long quotes need to be summarized. See my comment below about the need for consistency. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you direct your comment to Momento. He's the one adding most of them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The "fixes" to the terminology portion, in which "an alternative religion or spin-off from other traditional religions" conflated several conflicting terminologies, is not acceptable. Let the readers know that there was no consensus of sources on the subject. I request that all these are put back. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. What was deleted? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Apologies, my mistake. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Divine City

I don't see any mention of the Divine City project. This article seems like the most appropriate place for it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand that there were rumors about such a place at the time of the Millenium '73, but I think it never evolved beyond that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I've seen sources that say some work was done regarding planning and design. If I come across them again I'll add a sentence on it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Rawat talked about it once or twice as a futuristic ideal. I can remember him saying that it should have vacuum extractors in the gutters to suck away car fumes. I doubt you'll find anything worth mentioning.Momento (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, it is a very interesting part of the history of the movement. It's extraordinary that the leader was planning to create his own city. Since it didn't get very far a sentence will probably do. We can revisit this when I find the sources again. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
But Will, Rawat wasn't trying to build his own city. Next you'll be saying Rawat was trying to build his own harvester because he tied five rakes behind his car. You haven't seemed to grasp Rawat's playful nature.Momento (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
From what I recall of the sources, he wanted to build his own city and building sites were considered. Anyway, until we find the sources there's not much else to argue about. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I know I read about that in some of the LAT and NYT Millenium '73 coverage. If Rawat was playful and goofing his listeners, maybe we should mention that, too. I brought up the concept of Lila before and I think you objected, Momento. Msalt (talk) 06:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I added a few sentences to the Millenium '73 section about it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"One study found

that members spent 52.8 hours per week in ritual and study or indoctrination, with additional time spent studying." Apart from the grammatical gibberish, this is absurd. Was this seriously claimed about DLM ashrams? If it was, the source is totally wrong. There are plenty of sources who tell us nearly everyone in the ashrams held a full-time job (as I did in the four I lived in.) With an 8.5 hour work day, plus travel, clean-up time and the two ashram meals, that accounted for around 60 hours per week. How many waking hours does this turkey of a source think there are in a week? And study? There was no such thing. Nothing to study. Who added that nonsense? Never mind, I think I know. I will remove it tomorrow. Rumiton (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have a source that contradicts it then please provide it. But don't remove sourced material from a reliable source just because it contradicts your own experience. That's original research. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The source used is a graph in Conway and Siegelman's Snapping. I would argue that citing a graph, may be not the best way o represent that source, but if we do, we ought to give some context. The graph shows about 32% on "ritual" and 22.8% on "study/indoctrination", without making any distinctions of what these are. What is needed is to attribute the graph to the specific source (after all Conway and Siegelman have a very specific worldview) rather than stating "one study found..." and maybe improve the surrounding text for better context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I've attributed the statement. Having said that, there is no doubt that Conway and Siegelman are an acceptable source in the overall panorama of sources. Jayen466 18:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Probably unrelated, but after taking your 42.5 work hours out (btw, I wish I worked that little!), you took 17.5 hrs to clean-up and eat 2 meals?? If I worked 42.5 hours a week, I would easily have another 52.8 to spend on another project. Unfortunately, I've completed my 42.5hrs usually by Wednesday evening, but not my work-week. Granted my work schedule may not be typical, but clearly my own experience makes your claim of absurdity invalid. -- Maelefique (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think the way the source works is that your ashram meals are included, because it is also an ashram ritual. ;-) I have a question on our present wording "attending discourses on the Knowledge" in the sentence just prior to that: I thought the satsangs were sharings ("heart-to-hearts", as it were) between premies on their experiences with meditation etc. In other words, a form of "discourse" rather than discourses as normally understood (lectures). If so, we should find a source that describes the satsangs in more detail and makes clear their nature. Jayen466 17:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Conway & Siegelman break down the figures further: 4.7 hrs/day on "rituals & procedures" and 19.9 hrs/week on "additional study/indoctrination (lectures, seminars, workshops, etc)". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Which page that would be? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
It's in the study results printed in the Appendix. Page 361 in the 1995 edition. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I see. It would be good to correct the text in the article with the additional distinctions as stated in that page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
This section is meaningless - One study of former members found that 58% were Jewish, 33% Protestant, and 7% Catholic. They first came in contact with the DLM at an average age of 25 and stayed for three years. - unless you want to include every fact including Premies V Sanyassins educational standards and Galanters etc. I'm going to remove it.Momento (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not meaningless at all. More facts are better. Religion and age are key components of the makeup of the DLM. Please don't remove it just becuase you don't like it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Please assume "Good faith" Will. If you want facts to summarize, please include Jan van der Lans and Dr. Frans Derks -

Religious Background With respect to religious background, the two samples are fairly similar. In both, the majority came from Roman Catholic families (15 premies, or 79 percent; 12 sannyasins, or 67 percent). Only two premies (10 percent) and four sannyasins (22 percent) were from Protestant families, while in both movements two adherents had no religious background at all. As the proportion of Roman Catholics is only about 40 percent of the Dutch population, they are clearly overrepresented in both movements. This predominance of former Roman Catholics in the new religions seems to be a general rule. In The Netherlands, Van der Lans & Dahlmans (1982) found that 64 percent of their Unification Church sample were from Roman Catholic background, and Van der Lans (1981) reports a similar percentage for his Ananda Marga sample. In England, Barker (1981) found 21 percent in her Unification Church sample, as compared to only 12 percent in the general United Kingdom population. In the United States, Shupe & Bromley (1979) found that 55 percent of their Unification Church sample were from Roman Catholic background. In Australia, Ross (1983) found that 38 percent of the inhabitants of the Melbourne Hare Krishna temple were former Roman Catholics. TABLE 3: RELIGIOUS OACKGROUND Family religion premies sannyasins Roman Catholic Dutch Reformed Churches Reformed Churches None 15 (79 %) 1 (5 %) 1 (5 %) 2 (11 %) 12 (67 %) 4 (22 %) -- (11%)

ThanksMomento (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Why'd you delete it? Let's add a summary of all of these sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you both try and create sandbox to summarize all these different sources on the subject? It would be more productive, I think. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
If you want to note the religions of premies, you should ensure you include all the material available. And it shouldn't be there in isolation until it is incomplete. I think it is of very little value. There were DLMs in dozens of countries, all with different religious make ups. What does picking one country achieve? This article is about DLM, not just DLM U.S.Momento (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
We can add sources as we find them. The failure to include unfound sources doens't excuse deleting existing material. As for the demographics of the membership, let's summarize what we can find. We can specify which countries we're talking about. Obviously the religious makeup of the DLM is different in India than in the U.S. The overall numbers are dramatically different too (millions versus tens of thousands). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the 52 hours per week for ashram premies in the U.S. is an exaggeration at all. You figure at least 2 hours per day attending satsang -- that's 14 hours a week. Then there's at least 3 hours per day on the the ritual of singing Arti and daily meditation (arti is very long song to sing) -- that's 21 hours. So you've already got 35 hours per week not counting service, which for ashram premies were their jobs, whether in or outside of the ashram. Even practicing community premies spent roughly the same amount of time on satsang and meditation, and their weekends were often spent performing service around the community centers/ashrams doing whatever needed doing, including conducting intro and aspirant programs. Rawat's teachings are to do "satsang, service, meditation, and darshan. Now he calls it listening/watching dvds (satsang), practicing (meditation), participation (service), and keeping in touch (darshan). Given that the the requirement of interested people to watch the (70-100 hours) of Keys dvds "listening/watching", to prepare themselves to be taught the techniques (in order for them to gain an "understanding"), I don't see how Rumiton can say there's nothing for people to study or learn. Btw, Rawat's five commandments aren't listed in the teachings article, nor is his call for devotion (surrender) to himself, whether one was an ashram premie or not. That was his hallmark teaching in 70s and early 80s. The focus upon the internal experience of the Knowledge techiques are only a part of his teachings, because the focus is also on himself, first and foremost, as the "Perfect Master," "Lord of the Universe," "Satguru," "Teacher," -- with himself as the only one who has the keys to the Knowledge experience. To state that Rawat "speaks on the subject of peace," and "offers meditation techniques called Knowledge" is really an understatement and misrepresentation of the past and the present. A whitewash, in other words. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added the "five commandments", though the source isn't the best. If we find a better source we should upgrade it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Terms used in U.S. newspapers

I do not have that paper, and would be useful to know the date range in which that study was done, as well as the date of publishing of that paper. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  • The data generated in our empirical study stretch over the period of time between November, 1973, and April, 1984. Five time periods, evenly distributed in time (a gap of 2.5 years separated each period), were selected for study: November, 1973-April, 1974; May, 1976-October, 1976; November, 1978-April, 1979; May, 1981-October, 1981; November, 1983-April, 1984.
    • Sociological Analysis 1988, 49, 2:171-183
There you go. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Is there a breakdown for these periods, or are these aggregated? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I started a sentence to catalog the terms the group has used for itself, which I think will be an informative companion to the list of terms you compiled. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
As it stands now, it would be best to move that short sentence after the other distinctions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I expect it to grow longer quickly. I'll see what I can find. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Quoting from one chart without context is poor scholarship. In Richardson's paper (which I just obtained), there are two tables, one related to headlines, and one related content. The former reports 21.4% for "sect", and 0% for "cult" for the DLM.

This is the context surrounding table in Richardson's table:

Utilization of "Sect" and "Cult" in the Print Media: In her content analysis, Lindt (1979) encountered the concepts "sect" and/or "cult" in approximately two-thirds of the newspaper and news weekly issues she investigated. The results of the present study also indicate that the press has had few reservations in attaching the labels of "sect" and "cult" to the various NRMs. There are sharp differences, however, depending on the time periods and the groups concerned.
An analysis of the use of these two categories, in both the headlines (Table 2) and body (Table 3) of contextual units, reveals that a shift took place. After an initial preference for "sect," as a descriptive term for NRMs, the print media later chose to embrace the more pejorative term "cult." When we juxtapose Tables 2 and 3, an unexpected discrepancy emerges. In the contents of contextual units dealing with NRMs, the preference for "cult" is only manifest in the period of November, 1978-April, 1979, which is immediately post- Jonestown tragedy.9 Before and after this period there is no clear choice of terms. This is not he case with regard to categorization in headlines. Here the shift from sect to cult is more dramatic and enduring.10
In the first two periods there is an obvious preference for the use of the category "sect" in headlines. Thereafter "cult" is encountered far more often. The lack of correspondence between the contents and headlines of contextual units (for example between May, 1976, and October, 1976, the contents of units clearly leaned towards "cults," while the headlines clearly leaned toward "sect") points to the possibility that the writers of the various contextual units and the creators of their headlines are not the same individuals (copy editors are oftentimes responsible for headlines, for instance). Further evidence that this may be the case is the finding that on various occasions headlines made explicit reference to "cult," while the (sometimes lengthy) body eschewed any mention of the concept.
These serendipitous discoveries also suggest that it is probable that these disparate persons have different approaches to the subject matter. Unfortunately, no further investiga- tion of this discrepancy is possible here. Explicit references to "cults" peaked between November, 1978, and April, 1979, both in percentages and in absolute numbers. This has declined considerably in recent years. Both "sect" and "cult" were encountered less often between May, 1981, apd October, 1981, and between November, 1983, and April, 1984. The term "New Religious Movements" that numerous social scientists now employ was applied in print media accounts in only three instances. A conspicuous hiatus is thus again found to exist between the world of the news media reporter and social scientists. A new light is shed on the matter when we examine the categorization of the comparison groups.
Although they were often referred to as "religious sects," reference to the comparison groups by use of the concept "cult" was found in only one instance in 80 units, and then in an indirect fashion. It is perhaps more striking that in discussions of NRMs as an umbrella category, the press consistently favored the term "cult" instead of "sect." This holds true for both categorization in headlines (Table 4) ("cult" alone, 63 times; "sect" alone, 0 times) and in the body of contextual units (Table 5) "cult" alone, 51 times; "sect" alone, 0 times). In 26 cases both were employed in a unit's contents. Furthermore, it is in general discussions of NRMs that we found the concept "cult" most often (77% of the headlines and 92% of the contents). Only a slight minority of contextual units refrained from the usage of this concept when covering the new religions in this manner.
When we examine the coverage of individual groups we observe that the Unification Church (UC) was labeled a "cult" (or a "sect" for that matter) most often in absolute numbers, but not in proportionate terms. Various other groups scored higher on this dimen- sion of coverage. Equally pertinent was the unique position occupied by Transcendental Meditation (TM). In general media discussions of NRMs, TM is seldom referred to.
The print media seemed to locate TM outside the realm of "cults;" it was never labeled a "cult" (or "sect") in headlines, and only once within a unit's contents.There was a certain amount of confusion as to which label, "sect" or "cult," was the most appropriate for NRMs in the print media studies. Labeling of NRMs varied from one contextual unit to another and, as Tables 3 and 5 reveal, multiple units (42 in total) referred to NRMs as both "sects" and "cults." These were then used interchangeably, without an explanation of their respective meanings. Somewhat confusing discourses were the result, highlighted by sentences and phrases such as: "A little-known fundamentalist Christian sect, which some theologians believe to be the nation's second largest cult" (a reference to The Way International in the Washington Post, October 13, 1981); "The right to temporarily remove cult members from their sects" (New York Times, May 24, 1981); Amongst the more feared special interest groups, according to cult leaders, are organizations of parents of children in the various religious sects" (Washington Post, December 16, 1978).
Rarely was an attempt made to define these arbitrarily applied concepts, and on the occasions when this did take place, anti-cultist definitions were much more prevalent than social-scientific insights. Furthermore, merely by adopting the concept "cult" as a descriptive category, NRMs were, willingly or not, condemned to occupy a position in the same category of groups that includes the People's Temple, the Manson Family, and other marginal movements which evoke public fear and horror. A great deal of effort has been expended within the social-scientific tradition to unravel the complexities of marginal religious organizations. Unfortunately it seems that the message is somehow totally lost to the majority of those employed by the major print media. Because of the level of professionalism that characterizes the staff of the newspapers and news weeklies in our sample, it can be expected that the situation is even worse among the more local and popular media, as can be deduced from the findings of Bromley et al. (1979). They note, for instance, that most anti-cult oriented stories were printed in small community newspapers.
The failure of the print media to recognize social-scientific efforts in the area of religious movement organizations (as our previous research [van Driel and Richardson, 1985] also shows) impels us to add yet another failing mark to the media report card Weiss (1985) has constructed to assess the media's reporting of the social sciences."

Without mentioning some of the context, the current information is not representative of the source.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The current material correctly quotes the source. What you've quoted above is a discussion of the use of the terms, which belongs in a different article. If you want us to add the figures for headlines I'm fine with that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
No, Will. I disagree, and disagree strongly. Context is certainly needed needed to clarify these numbers. As they say, there are Lies, damned lies, and statistics. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
What context are you demanding that we add? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not demanding anything. All you need is something along the lines of: In a study of the categorization of new religious movements in US media, which describes the the failure of the print media to recognize social-scientific efforts in the area of religious movement organizations and its tendency to use anti-cultist definitions rather than social-scientific insights... and then some link text and provide the percentages from the table. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
(btw, thanks for the source, it is very insightful and interesting reading) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Can someone summarize the context of that table and add some text as per above argument? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I added "which concerned their failure to use the terminology favored by social scientists," per your requests. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
That is very important qualify. I'm glad you put it in.Momento (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Good, but not sufficient, Will. As it is written is not clear. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
What's your the problem now? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
My problem? I do not have any problems, Will. If your question is about the wording, then see my summary above that provides the necessary context to frame that study correctly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. This isn't an article on the meaning of "cult", "sect", etc., or their use by the media or the anti-cult movement. This article is concerned with the Divine Light Mission. Material that is not directly related to that topic should be kept to an absolute minimum. The material you're demanding is not directly related, and isn't necessary for readers to understand the meaning of the study results as they apply to the DLM. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
We will have to agree to disagree, then. This is an article that was written specifically to address the failure of the media to use the scientific terminology, in favor of popular terminology peddled by certain factions of society. Not including that information is simply not an acceptable use of that source, and frankly, given that you were not forthcoming with that information in the first place, it seems a bit disingenuous. I am willing to assume good faith, Will, but I have a concern: why did not make that information known, until I had a chance to read the full article? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
If we find a source devoted to studying the number of bathrooms in ashrams in the 1970s in various Hindu-derived religions, and it makes a specific finding about DLM, I think it's fair to report their finding on DLM without recapitulating their thesis. I wrote the part about the use of terminology used to refer to the subject and omitted the part about the general thesis of the use of terminology. On your demand, I've added a mention of that thesis. But that thesis is not concerned with DLM specifically. We already link to articles on "cult" and "sect", which is where a discussion of the use of those terms belongs. This article has a lof of ground to cover so let's agree to leave out extraneous material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the large block text you quote above - how many times is the DLM mentioned? Zero. That's why it's not relevant. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
You are missing the point, Will. Rather than repeat it again, I would invite you to re-read the whole article as well as my summary, and my argument for that summary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Basically, and to be blunt, we should not take a source that is making a specific point, and rip it off to make a the opposite point, which is exactly what you did with your first edit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I did not misuse the source, which I accurately quoted. Nor did I use it to make the opposite point. The study is entitled "Categorization of New Religious Movements in American Print Media" and I reported the statistics it has regarding the DLM. Again, to use an analogy, if we found a reliable source that mostly talks about an irrelevant topic, such as the price of real estate in Denver, and it mentioned the price paid by the DLM for its HQ, I think it would be appropriate to use the source for the HQ price without summarizing the study's conclusions about the price of real estate in Denver. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
You may have not wanted to misuse the source, but it seemed that you did: the text you added described the percentage of sources that used a certain term, without mentioning the reason for the study., which was to demonstrate the poor acceptance of scientific terminology by a US media that was influenced by certain antagonistic forces to novel religions in the US. My concern remains that as written now, it does not represent the source used. M<aybe Jaen or someone else can attempt to phrase the source in a more accurate way, ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The text includes what the source says about the DLM, which is the relevant part. On your demand I've added a mention of the overall thesis of the paper - which is that news media don't use the terms that social scientists use. Since that thisis is unrelated to the DLM, we shouldn't expound on it further here. We link to the article on "cults", and I suggest you add some material there about this paper there. Also, we link to the paper itself so that reader may read the sources study in its entirety. I think you're being obstinate and unreasonable in this matter, but to accomodate your demands I'll add the text you wrote to the footnote, in lieu of putting it in the text. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
You "depersonalize" above, but personalize here again. I could say the same about you being "obstinate and unreasonable", but I don't. Look, we can simply agree to disagree and ask for other editors' opinions, this article is neither mine, nor yours, right? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. So far it's not clear. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
So, is that compromise acceptable - to put the summary of the thesis of the study in the footnotes? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Not acceptable, as all text in footnotes need to be removed. See WP:CITE and WP:FOOTNOTE. FYI, in GA and FA articles it is the practice to remove all these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
This is the third compromise offer you've rejected. Do you still insist that your proposed text is the only acceptable way to mention the findings in this study? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)